The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

*sigh* Yet another TV to film remake

gsdx

gsdx

Festina lente
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Posts
57,249
Reaction score
1,603
Points
113
Location
Peterborough Ontario
Gilligan's Island this time:

Gilligan's Island, the movie

D.I.S.H.
Warner Bros. is developing film based on the seven famous castaways.

Warner Bros. and Atlas Entertainment have begun production on a feature film based on Gilligan's Island.

According to Variety, the show's original producer Sherwood Schwartz is aboard to executive produce, along with his son Lloyd Schwartz.

Gilligan's Island aired for three seasons, from 1964-1967, on CBS. It generated solid ratings during that time but grew to immense popularity in later syndication.
Click to expand...

http://inmovies.ca/Home/ContentPost...ine=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False

You can either post a response or just scream and rip your hair out.

Your choice. ..|
 
it was also announced yesterday that Neil Patrick Harris was cast as the lead live action actor for "Smurfs:The Movie"....so you have that to look forward to as well
 
WHY would they do this? No reason to do this. SOMEONE in Hollywood is either out of ideas OR they need a tax write off for next year. It might be more interesting of they cast some young actor who looks great without a shirt and let Gilligan run around shirtless most of the time. Maybe something between him, Skipper, and Professor. How bout casting Aussie Actor from "Moonlight" as Professor? Alex O'Laughlan? I probably have the name totally wrong but he would be nice to look at. Or maybe Lady Bunny as Mrs. Howell. LOL
 
bostonboy20 said:
it was also announced yesterday that Neil Patrick Harris was cast as the lead live action actor for "Smurfs:The Movie"....so you have that to look forward to as well
Click to expand...

What do you call it when two (or more) Smurfs have sex??? :sex::sex:*|*


"Smucking" (!)(!)#-o
 
You know I'm really getting sick of people freaking out and saying 'I'm sick of this' 'Hollywood's out of ideas' etc. etc. Hollywood has only ever had one idea and that's making money. It's not an artistic media it's a business. And if you're sick of remakes, adaptations, and sequels then don't go because that's the only way it's going to stop. As long as these things continue to be profitable people will continue to remake them.
 
falconfan said:
It's not an artistic media it's a business. And if you're sick of remakes, adaptations, and sequels then don't go because that's the only way it's going to stop. As long as these things continue to be profitable people will continue to remake them.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is the fact that there have been more bombs than successes. Those TV shows were from another time and another generation. Their success at the time was because of their entertainment value and their innocent charm. Converting them to theatrical movies usually don't succeed because they (the studios) update and rewrite them to appeal to today's audiences.

The list of travesties is long: The Beverly Hillbillies, Bewitched, Land of the Lost, & The Dukes of Hazzard to name but a few.

The list of successes is much, much shorter.

Even Star Trek: The Motion Picture, despite being a box-office success, was a total bomb because Robert Wise had no idea who the characters were or what Star Trek was all about.

Money doesn't always qualify a movie as being a success.
 
gsdx said:
The problem with that is the fact that there have been more bombs than successes. Those TV shows were from another time and another generation. Their success at the time was because of their entertainment value and their innocent charm. Converting them to theatrical movies usually don't succeed because they (the studios) update and rewrite them to appeal to today's audiences.

The list of travesties is long: The Beverly Hillbillies, Bewitched, Land of the Lost, & The Dukes of Hazzard to name but a few.

The list of successes is much, much shorter.

Even Star Trek: The Motion Picture, despite being a box-office success, was a total bomb because Robert Wise had no idea who the characters were or what Star Trek was all about.

Money doesn't always qualify a movie as being a success.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the awfulness that was Bilko and Car 54 Where Are You.

The Addams Family film was very enjoyable, but that was due to Charles Addams' genius, on which both the TV series and the films were based.
 
The Matter Of Splatter said:
Except that you're wrong - people have stopped going(Bewitched and Land of The Lost are two famous bomb examples), and yet, they're still churning out the classics.

A-Team and Gilligans, Smurfs... what's next, All In the Family?
Click to expand...

Have they because Alice is poised to break box office this weekend. Remakes The Crazies and WOlfman are currently sitting in the top ten. Book adaptations Percy Jackson and Dear John also have showed strongly in recent weeks. Unoriginality is profitable and as long as it continues to be so it will persist.
 
gsdx said:
The problem with that is the fact that there have been more bombs than successes. Those TV shows were from another time and another generation. Their success at the time was because of their entertainment value and their innocent charm. Converting them to theatrical movies usually don't succeed because they (the studios) update and rewrite them to appeal to today's audiences.

The list of travesties is long: The Beverly Hillbillies, Bewitched, Land of the Lost, & The Dukes of Hazzard to name but a few.

The list of successes is much, much shorter.

Even Star Trek: The Motion Picture, despite being a box-office success, was a total bomb because Robert Wise had no idea who the characters were or what Star Trek was all about.

Money doesn't always qualify a movie as being a success.
Click to expand...

First of all, Star Trek was most certainly NOT a bomb. As far as US Box Office goes it was ranked 7th in 2009. Now whether you or the STar Trek fanbase like it, that is a MAJOR hit from an economic perspective.

Secondly you've named four films that are YEARS apart (1993 - 2009). That hardly is evidence of any trend. Especially when you look at the list of top 50 grossing films from last year, which is littered with sequels (Ice Age FOUR, another Fast & Furious, The Final Destination), adaptations/remakes (Sherlock Holmes, GI Joe, Wolverine, A Christmas Carol, Watchmen, Julie & Julia, He's Just Not That Into You, Coraline, Race to With Mountain, Where the Wild Things Are), and often both (Harry Potter, New Moon, Transformers 2, Chipmunks 2)

And of the top TEN grossing 70% of them were based on previously written/recorded material.

We can sit here and say films suck, and critics might agree. Regardless shitty adaptations of The Chipmunks and Sex and the City bring in bank for the people behind them.
 
falconfan said:
First of all, Star Trek was most certainly NOT a bomb. As far as US Box Office goes it was ranked 7th in 2009. Now whether you or the STar Trek fanbase like it, that is a MAJOR hit from an economic perspective.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said?
 
gsdx said:
Isn't that what I said?
Click to expand...

No what you said was 'despite' it's success it was a bomb. Which leads me to believe you're either ignoring contradictory evidence or don't know what a bomb is. Because that's like saying despite way 20 tons it's not heavy.
 
SoloHero said:
That's were artistic vision came in. The writers and directors of those movies took something that was already there and made it with a different perceptive, they did something new with the established concept. Unlike the other remakes and adaptions (thanks agaymale ;) ), which were flops, because the only thing they did was just took something, tried to "modernized" and was only looking to quick make a profit, with shotty writing and/or sub-par "talent", which rarely ever works out, but, they keep doing the same thing year after year after, and it gets tiresome and predictable.
Click to expand...

Really? You think artistic visions is what made "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" the 9th highest grossing film of 2009 or for that matter it was great stretches of artistic vision that were emplyed to catapult "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" to the number 2 spot?

It's alot simpler than that. Shitty films often make money. True art many times does not. It's the nature of art. Always has been, underappreciated in its day and held in higher regard later. It's really simple. It's consumerism, capitalism, commercialism. Quality doesn't matter to the people bankrolling these things. If you were willing to pay ten bucks to stare at a piece of lint they'd gladly charge you as much. They don't care. *shrug* Shit films will continue to make money and as a result Air Bud sequels will continue to be produced.

You're never going to love everything that's made. Don't get so bent out of shape because some idiots are doing something that won't work. Just enjoy what you enjoy because if entertainment was about art then I'd still be able to watch Pushing Daisies
 
ElvisVanderbilt said:
It's not about telling a completely new and original story, it's about telling the same story we've already heard in a new and inventive fashion.
Click to expand...

pride-prejudice-zombies.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top