Disney to remake 'Yellow Submarine' with CGI

Couldn't agree more.

The original is one of my all-time favourite movies, and the idea of any kind of remake just fills me with dread.

It was a product of it's time, had great visuals to match the songs, and the Fab Four at the end. How are they going to do that with CGI?
 
Will they be able to add the real Beatles at the end? (as in, the same clip from the classic film). It's seeing them at the end that makes the film so great!
 
all they should do is RECREATE the movie, and not do an "update" or "reboot" of the story, as there wouldn't be a point in that!

take the original animations and bitmap them onto their respective 3d modellings .....
 
A 'recreation' seems far more pointless than a remake to me. I quite like remakes. They don't change the original in any way - it's still there, exactly as it was if you still want to watch it.

Ultimately, a remake is just another movie that you can watch, or not, as you see fit. The two films aren't linked by some imaginary umbilical - there's no cause and effect, or alteration going on between the two.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Really? Explain in detail how this physically works in the real world - or are we actually talking about what goes on inside your head instead?

RegarRAB

Mark
 
"2 tickets for Yellow Submarine 3D. That'll be a gajillion pounRAB for no real added benefit.... there you go Sir... oh and don't forget your complimentary LSD blotter, you'll need that else this film won't make a lick of sense."
 
Claws away Mr A please! :p

Well no, inside my head I will maintain that the original is the only version worth seeing (due it its originality and being representative of its time). Remakes can overshadow the originals in that newer generations could see 'Yellow Submarine' as the CGI version and not the original whenever it comes up, a la 'The Incredible Journey' (honestly, this is one of my favourite films, but whenever I bring it up people recall the remake, 'Homeward Bound' where the animals can frigging talk).

Are you telling me you've never been annoyed when one of your favourite songs was covered badly and unnecessarily?
 
In some ways, I think a remake, especially a bad one, say Wicker Man can enhance the original's standing as people too young to have seen the original or hadn't been around during the hype can go back and watch some cinematic marvels.

The Wicker Man brought Neil La Bute's vision of the original's premise to the table but it was considered simply a bad film with some scenes such as Cage dressed as a bear (compare this with Woodward dressed as Punch, a grotesque character well in line with the pagan theme) which looks like it has come out of Dom Joly's Trigger Happy TV . Mark rightly says, the original is there in all its glory ready to be enjoyed and savoured.
 
And why is that bad? If any of them are really interested they'll make the effort to see both and compare. If they don't, who cares what they think anyway? It isn't going to change your perception, and who are we to be dictating which is or isn't a good/bad film in the first place?


How can anything that isn't actually life-sustaining be deemed to be necessary or not? It's a personal choice, not a forgone conclusion. Being first at something doesn't automatically mean it's the best of anything. Everything has to be judged on its own merits, nothing else.

RegarRAB

Mark
 
Back
Top