There's only one girl and the guys aren't doing each other. It's a gangbang, not an orgy. Let's respect the English language, here, people.

I think what I wanted from It was not an adaptation of the book, but a horror movie using concepts from the book. Pretty much you need kids, clown, sewers, and just go from there. This might be one of the few cases where I would have forgiven the movie for not following the book too closely.

I do not either. It is much more difficult to sell the fear in this story as an adult. It could be done provided it is nothing like the '90 miniseries.

Ha, well that's a low bar isn't it? Let's see if they cast any B and C level TV has beens as the adults.

I think they'll get some great people, based on who they got in the first one already.

I watched Vampyres last night. Probably the pinnacle of 70's-era erotic lesbian vampire horror. It's not bad, and I've seen it before, but I mostly put it on while I finished half a dozen other things. Not sure why it was rated (or rather, re-rated) NC-17, since it's not particularly graphic. Not a terrible film, not great. Acting is okay, atmosphere is pretty good, plotting is rather loose.

For those paying attention, yes, this is the second lesbian vampire horror film I've watched in two weeks. I'm wondering if the idea of these films is better than the actual films.

Watched the remake (re-remake?) of "The Magnificent Seven" last night. Not bad, and some good quality stuntwork, but nowhere near the 1960 version in terms of personality.

I think mother! might be the first Very Serious Film™ I've seen to elicit unintended laughter from an entire theater in nearly every scene. You know that part in Showgirls where Elizabeth Berkley's character is simply asked what city she is from and she blurts out "DIFFERENT PLACES" angrily, incongruously? Every other scene in the first half of mother! has dialogue like that, where the character beats are all off. The acting ranges from fine to good (Lawrence and Harris especially both put in a lot of effort) but you can't act your way out of a script this bad. Yes, I realize it's supposed to be surreal, but it's hard to get invested in the most surreal parts of the film (the second half) when even basic character interactions during "realistic" scenes are unbelievable.

Good grief, what a mess. By far the worst of the five Aronofsky films I've seen.

Funny, one of the previews I saw before It was a trailer for mother!.

I can't recall that ever happening before. One of the "preview" trailers actually being a commercial for a movie already in wide release. Studio must have been desperate.

I thought IT was great as well as creepy and unsettling just like the tone of the book. I can't wait for the second half to come out.

I watched Alien: Covenant last week. The majority of it was better than I expected after reading so many mediocre reviews, but by the time I got to the credits, I understood why it wasn't particularly loved. The last chunk of it - and especially the ending - was pretty silly/lame. It was better than Prometheus by a long shot IMO, though ultimately still pretty forgettable.

Both of those movies had plenty of great ideas but the execution was off. I liked the interplay between the androids and the biogenesis themes of those movies, but there was a bunch of useless filler that didn't add anything to them. I think it would be cool if Scott finds a way to go back to the horror film roots of the first movie. One alien and a bunch of blue-collar folk losing their minds.

I don't know what the point of that would be, though. I mean, that's essentially two Alien films already (1 and 3, prisoners instead of blue collar, but same logic) in that vein, as well as one video game.

I think the Aliens have a similar problem to the Predators that I mentioned pages ago, in that these make great horror film creatures, but confusing or poor "universe" creatures. Once you apply too much depth or explanation to them, they lose their appeal and they even start to make less sense. I mean, the Predators just hunt different aliens for a huge chunk of their society and... that's it. That doesn't sell me that they have an advanced science division building their space ships.

And is anyone satisfied with this ever-bloating, at one point Jesus-involving, backstory about the Aliens? No. No one fucking likes that. Some things do not need to keep getting sequels. They can just fucking stop. This idea that everything is a franchise that needs to just keep going forever both ruins once-amazing original concepts and buries any new original ideas before they can start.

Call me a bitter nerd if you wish, but as far as I'm concerned, there are 4 Alien films, 3 Predators, and the rest doesn't exist because it was never needed.

The problem with Alien Covenant and Prometheus is just that they play it so safe and there are no real new ideas. Prometheus maybe had some nice imagery, but in terms of story and action, they're super redundant and boring and everything you see can be seen better in the early Alien movies. That's the problem with so many of these tired nostalgia-based reboots - there's nothing really of substance there. The new Alien movies have a lot of self important huffing and puffing and trying to seem like they're "important" to understanding some backstory, but they're just not interesting at all.

This is a continuation of my last post, but as the thought diverged, it seemed like a better idea to split it:

Sometimes, time helps us understand just how we really feel about a movie. And it's upon re-watching them. Do you want to watch it again? Do you look forward to watching it again? I would rather rewatch the original Star Wars movies than rewatch any of the prequels or new ones. I would rather rewatch the entire Alien Quadrilogy than rewatch Prometheus or even consider the AvP movies. When I do my Die Hard marathon in December, it's likely I'll stop with the first three. I'm a Transformers fan and own the first four movies and original '86 film. I would rather transform toys from the movies and watch the '86 film than any of the new ones.

There are so few movies made these days that I feel have that kind of longevity, that rewatchability. The obvious reason is nostalgia. I grew up with these movies so it's like they're written into my life in some capacity. The entertainment of my youth. But as I've griped about before, modern filmmakers seem to be more focused on effects wizardry and spectacle than telling a riveting story or giving us memorable characters. We know just too damn much about our celebrities these days, too.

I said before, Shia LeBouf did fairly well for his role in Crystal Skulls, but I don't think audiences could separate the character from the real-life douchebag. Same with so many Tom Cruise movies. Instead of seeing a character, we see Tom Cruise and remember his stupid hokey religion and what a smilin' jackass the guy is 90% of the time. I read once that Kevin Spacey keeps his private life out of the public eye for this very reason.

So far, offhand, the only more recent movie I've seen that I felt like rewatching after it was done was The Void. Which I did within a day by showing it to other people. Damn, what a ride.

Or maybe

What a terrible irony that all these nostalgia bait works attempt to be deeper and only end up delivering something way more shallow and derivative. Ultimately diminishing the value of the franchise as a whole. It is amazing, though, just how many nails can be driven into these coffins and they still aren't completely dead.

Or maybe that's depressing.

Maybe others have different opinions, but I just never found it very interesting to know more about the lore of worlds like Terminator or Alien or something. Those aren't movies I watch for the rich compelling long-form stories; they're good because they're action packed, suspenseful and worked fine as stand-alone films.

The idea that I need to see a whole new movie to understand everything that happens in the Terminator story or Alien is not just silly, but actively kind of offensive that they need to spoon-feed us this bullshit. We got everything we needed to know from the old films. There was never a need for more backstory or explanation. But for some reason Hollywood producers just really want to force shovel-loads of exposition down our throats. It isn't necessary.

Then again I just never cared about fantasy world-building. If I watch some kind of fantasy or sci-fi thing, I just want something fun and quick-paced. I usually don't need a lot of world-building type of stuff.

All the new Alien prequel-things tell us is that the Alien creatures have always been just as ferocious as they were in the original films and there were people who facilitated them getting out. Wow. What a shocker. Please spend millions making this!

I'd have to agree. With the Terminator movies, I still enjoyed the third film because it was a decent action road movie and it's message of "you can't change the future, only delay it" was fine, but beyond that little bit of addition, the series plummeted fast. I can totally understand why the franchise could've just stopped at 2.

When it comes to universe-building, there are places for it and places it works. I think Star Trek and the Stargate franchises both worked well for this, but they were also TV shows (after the SG movie, and the show basically built it's own thing). A movie should be generally succinct, and the first Alien films filled that role well as horror and SF-action setpieces. The more we "learn" of the scrambled together backstories of these franchises, the worse they continue to get. So I'm all for world building in some capacities. But even those should frequently have an endpoint. Star Trek has fallen into nostalgia-bait revamps and prequel-filling bullshit lately. The next Stargate series appears to be likely unnecessary prequel-filler of a story we already know.

What's the lesson of every story about someone who lives forever? That generally you need an ending because forever makes the now meaningless. That's what every franchise that goes on forever is doing.

Pay attention hardcore Star Wars fans: This is coming for you next.

I kid, I kid. It's already happened. Remember that Death Star from the original film and what a big deal it was? Now we know those things are not remotely a big deal--just something the bad guys cook up every 10-20 years or so. One super-weapon is a big deal. Several super-weapons is just another Tuesday.

The point would be that it would kick ass, I would watch it, and it would be better than the other shit they've been doing. That's enough for me. I'm not the kind of person that needs some sort of grand explanation/"good reason" as to why a movie should exist before I decide if I want to see it or not.

My point was more that it sounds like another regurgitation of ideas and concepts that would just make you less than thrilled. Because of the derivative nature, the director would no doubt push to load it with a bunch of that exposition you don't want so the work "stands out" in some capacity. You know, like remaking three Jurassic Park movies into one, but adding genetic super-monsters for "different one-upmanship." Predators was largely exactly what to your point for that franchise, just working to deliver another kick-ass installment without piles of extra backstory. I enjoyed it for that, personally, but still found it woefully inferior to the original film.

Out of curiosity and assuming you're a Predator fan, did this one deliver what you were looking for, or did it also fall short?

If it's too directly derivative, it becomes pointless. If they add too much exposition, they ruin it. It's a Catch-22. It's a part of why I think some of these things just need to die.

Die the hero or live long enough to become the villain.

Didn't watch it. And I don't care for your argument because I loved Alien Isolation for the same exact reason I loved the first movie. If the execution is 100%, the amount of derivation becomes completely moot to me. Same reason I liked the new IT. Also the same reason I love Evil Dead 1 and 2. And the hundreds of other examples that follow this same exact pattern.

So you'd be fine with a shot-for-shot remake of something, like they essentially did with Psycho? Evil Dead 1 and 2 are also very different from one another. One could fairly say that ED2 is basically a remake with a bunch of exposition added to it for more background on the original story. In a sense, that film (which is still great), is no different from what is ruining so many movies now. It probably survives entirely by having the same writer, director, producers, and star.

Ha, I'm not digging at you--I personally don't seen the point in remakes that are too similar or remakes that try going too far their own way. Either the new film is completely pointless, or flamboyantly miss the point and deliver a pile of unwatchable crap like that apparent Day of the Dead remake or the last Thing remake.

I would also posit that Alien: Isolation stands out because it's a game, and puts you in the role. If it were another movie, it'd be Predators, which you seem to have avoided.

ED1 and ED2 are way more similar than they are different and the second is extremely derivative of the first. Since you brought all of this up in the first place I was simply giving a few examples of things that are exactly like you mentioned that are still enjoyable and things that I like quite a lot. And I never said anything about digging at me.

I dunno about needing a grand reason for a movie to exist - I just want things to have a concrete ending and end while they are on top, rather than descend into something lame. Execution does matter a lot. If they made a kick-ass new Alien movie I'd like that - but it hasn't happened yet in my opinion.

I just didn't want it to seem like I was digging at you, as my questions moved into your personal views.

I think ED 1 and 2 are more different than they are the same. At their very core, the first is a straight horror film, the second is horror-comedy more in-line with Army of Darkness. The first film leaves Ash largely alone defending himself for most of it, the second adds new characters for him to operate with/against with a new dynamic. The second also added a huge swath of new ideas, characters, and content. Backstory, mythology arc, details of the ancient evils, potential sequel hook, new, varied characters, massive new setpieces, etc. The second is derivative only in having the same basic plot and setting. Everything else changed.

It was, shall we say, as different as going from Kill 'em All to Ride the Lightning, for a lazy analogy, instead of going from one AC/DC album to another.

The second movie is almost the same exact plot and exposition as the first. The other differences are tertiary to the driving force of the film, much in the same way that Alien and Alien Isolation operates. If this is the kind of level of "derivation" that you think is bad or would want to avoid, then sign me up! But I'm not here to argue about Evil Dead, only to discuss the point that movies that either seem to be or *are* derivations of others is not something with an inherent negative or positive value. I sure as fuck *would* pay to see a new Alien movie that was a lot like the first, and for good reason; that movie kicked ass.

I would say that the longer they stretch the franchise, the less likely another kick-ass movie will happen. It doesn't even matter the franchise--the longer it goes on, the worse it tends to get. You might get some occasional new bits here and there, like Wes Craven's New Nightmare, but for the most part, it's just more cash-grabs because the fans can't let go.

Wanting another kick-ass installment of something (several times over) is exactly how we got to where we are in these various franchises now. Fans want it, the production companies see the dollar signs, and they slap together another. We'll see it anyway, and they don't need to worry about anything else.

I'm not trying to dismiss any points about "if they made another good one, I'd be happy," as I totally agree. Another really great Alien movie would be pretty awesome. Another Indiana Jones as exciting as Raiders or Crusade would be fucking sweet. Another Die Hard taking place at Christmas and earning it's R rating without sidekicks would be rad. This goes back to my earlier gripe about how fans are allowing crappy movies like this to exist, keep supporting them, and instead of letting them die, we cling to nostalgia. To the point that actual great new films are being ignored while we shit more money into Derivative Nostalgia Bait Bullshit #4457.

It reminds me of how The Nice Guys went thoroughly ignored in theaters, despite being about the best of what it is in ages. People would rather spend their money on "safe" franchises that have been going downhill for ages "because fandom."

Another curious question on the classic Alien set-up for Rexxz: Did you like Leviathan? It was literally "Alien, but underwater."

I've never seen that one. But anyway, in the past 5 years I've seen far more "new and original" movies than remakes or sequels of classics, so I really don't relate to that other point.

That's probably pretty true. Movies require so much input and different jobs and whatnot that it's difficult to maintain quality for a long run of sequels - not like books or music where it's a much smaller number of personnel who can better control the quality.

And yeah, shame about The Nice Guys, but that's par for the course. People don't always take risks on entertainment when there's money on the line I guess.

In recent years, I have grown increasingly bored with failures to create anything resembling new ideas. I do appear to be among some odd minority that actually likes the first Alien derivatives, which were (the aforementioned) Leviathan and Alien 3. At least, I used to like Leviathan. I'm kinda thinking it's probably not very good if I watch it again.

I know, I know, "it's all been done/Simpsons did it" is the mantra of modern films, television, video games, and general entertainment. I'm tired of it all being so fucking obvious. It makes everything so banal. Why am I watching one of these new ideas that so clearly rips off, say, Seven, if it's not going to be as good, better, or do anything really different (like Anamorph, a Willem Defoe movie everyone forgot exists). By the late 90's, the idea of a slasher guy killing a bunch of sexy teens had turned into self-parody, and we laughed at the cliches. Now that shit is being churned out even more often than it was in the 80's.

Literature and storytelling in general have some very basic versus themes: Man v man, man v nature, man v self, etc. But there's so much that can be accomplished there. The most originality we see now is a pile of paint-by-numbers movies where sometimes the only things they change are "maybe a slightly darker blue" this time, or "way more CG graphics." Have there been any good werewolf films made this century? Maybe Dog Soldiers. And nothing else.

Yeah, I'm getting ranty. I have a document with around 30 story ideas written in it (or is it 30 pages and 50 ideas? I don't remember), and I spend an inordinate amount of time considering what would count as an original idea, what is unexplored territory, what would really be a different concept. What prevents something from being a yawn-inducing clone of something else? Is it worth taking existing ideas and trying a new spin, only to get lost in a sea of similar lazy ideas touted as "a new spin on [GENRE], [STYLE], or [MOVIE TITLE]"? What defines true originality? Am I just jaded, or is there really a problem here? The franchises I love are not getting better, and they aren't going to get better. They might have a stand-alone new wow factor, but they will never be as good as they were. They will just exist in banal mediocrity that I/we keep paying for because the right logo is on the front.

In gaming, this is something Nintendo understands. The power of the franchise. This is why they appear to have so few actual new ideas, because they shoe-horn existing franchises into every new idea. Nintendo, at this point, is unlikely to ever make a new sports game without Mario being the core. Kirby's Epic yarn used to be a completely new franchise starring the little blue guy, but Nintendo relegated the blue guy to partner/buddy status, told the devs to make it a Kirby game instead. They did the exact same thing with Dinosaur Planet back on the GameCube, when they had the game rebuilt as StarFox Adventures and relegated for former star to a damsel-in-distress.

This is what Prometheus feels like. It was a different story altogether that had Aliens slapped into it because hungry fans would throw their money at the screen. Then they'll (the producers) piss around for a while as the franchise continually languishes, maybe the right combo of writer-director will come along and deliver the right kind of derivative that comes close--it'll never be quite right (like Predators)--but it'll come close, and then the franchise will either stop or nose-dive extra fast afterwards if they want to maintain the cash-grab. And we'll keep throwing our money at the screens while The Nice Guys and The Voids of the world quietly wave to us from anonymity.


/ranty rant rant

Yeah I am pretty sure we are all in agreement on Prometheus. If you had read my original comments about the two new Alien movies you would know that

I'm asking specifically for one that's closely resembling the very first movie, which even if we count 3's similarities, still has yet to be done in that franchise beyond the first. And we'll just agree to disagree on rehashing/derivations/remakes/etc. To me the execution is what matters most and if I feel like a movie has already created some sort of archetype that further movies can be based on, I'm happy for it and I'd love to see more variations of that archetype. There are *plenty* of new films being made, you just have to look for them a little bit more than you would for stuff that hits the theaters. I watch new movies *all* the time and there is a ton of cool new shit being made. I also am a big fan of retreading old ground if a case can be made for it (and in my opinion there are a huge amount of movies that fall into that camp that are excellent). There is no "either/or" choice here; we live in a world where both exist and I'm happy for it.

Yeah, there are actually a lot of new, good things coming out all the time and people reducing it down to "everything is just a sequel or remake of something now" are ignoring so many great things, for sure. I get frustrated when I hear that stuff.

I liked It a lot.

I haven't seen It yet but I thought the director said the reason is because he has a different idea for Mike's character in the sequel.

That's correct. I've seen the movie and read those comments you're talking about. We'll see how it goes, but from what he said I imagine a lot of people will be complaining about it.

Yeah that was my initial reaction, and I couldn't blurt it out quick enough in defense of anyone/everyone involved. But then I thought about it from my girls perspective. All she sees is that they took a black central character who used to be the book worm and now he works on a farm. I kind of get why it rubbed her the wrong way as a knee-jerk thing. It does look like they're setting up the second part to be a little different, which is fine of course!

He's still a bookworm though, based on what the director said about the sequel. He will still play the same pivotal role as he did in the book and the 90s miniseries. They just didn't show that side as a kid. And honestly I don't mind, the butcher/farm thing is more compelling to me.

Killer! I'm sure they'll find some way to reconcile all that, sounds a tad scattered. I do agree he still had plenty of depth as a character.