Sydney Sweeney to be the new Barbella in upcoming Sony Remake!!!

[the Jester]

Why should it be true to the original? Let it be its own thing. Stories get re-told all the time, with each storyteller putting their own spin on them.

What's the point in making a new Barbarella if the only thing it shares with the original is the name? That's just an exploitative money grab, IMHO.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What's the point in making a new Barbarella if the only thing it shares with the original is the name? That's just an exploitative money grab, IMHO.

....you had me at "money."

 

[Ryujin]

What's the point in making a new Barbarella if the only thing it shares with the original is the name? That's just an exploitative money grab, IMHO.

I present to you the Star Trek Kelvin Universe...

 

[billd91]

I present to you the Star Trek Kelvin Universe...

Even with respect to the very big changes wrought on the story lines (and the Abramsian abuses of space/time and lens flare), the Star Trek reboots made sure to incorporate many notable character elements. Karl Urban was a particular stand-out here in channeling McCoy. Those were among the most important truths they stuck to in making the adaptation.

And that's, I think, an important point. You want reinterpretation, but you also want some essential aspects to be preserved to provide that link to the source material being reinterpreted. And part of the art of reinterpretation is choosing which essential aspects to preserve so they can be seen from a new perspective.

 

[the Jester]

I present to you the Star Trek Kelvin Universe...

I reject entirely the proposition that the Kelvin Universe doesn't share anything but the name with OG Star Trek.

 

[Ryujin]

Even with respect to the very big changes wrought on the story lines (and the Abramsian abuses of space/time and lens flare), the Star Trek reboots made sure to incorporate many notable character elements. Karl Urban was a particular stand-out here in channeling McCoy. Those were among the most important truths they stuck to in making the adaptation.

And that's, I think, an important point. You want reinterpretation, but you also want some essential aspects to be preserved to provide that link to the source material being reinterpreted. And part of the art of reinterpretation is choosing which essential aspects to preserve so they can be seen from a new perspective.

The casting in those movies was bang on, for every character. To my mind, at least, the stories weren't. I feel that they wasted a great cast.

Oh well. On to other things then.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The casting in those movies was bang on, for every character. To my mind, at least, the stories weren't. I feel that they wasted a great cast.

Oh well. On to other things then.

My personal take on the Kelvin Universe.

Yes, the casting was amazing (RIP Anton Yelchin .... ).

But when the first Kelvin movie came out, the franchise ... Star Trek ... it was pretty moribund. The first movie is Abrams at his best. LENS FLARES. ACTION. LENS FLARES. COMEDY. LENS FLARES. FAN SERVICE. LENS FLARES.

It's like getting on a superfast roller coaster ride while eating a bunch of cotton candy and having nostalgic scenes of Star Trek shown to you (but with LENS FLARES). You have a great time, you're happy, and at the end of the ride you're glad you did it ... so long as you don't think about it too much, and ignore the terrible pain in your stomach from all those empty calories.

By the second movie (Into Darkness) those tricks- the remixed nostalgia, the LENS FLARES, and the action/comedy/sugar rush have worn off, and you realize that it's just empty.

Such is life with Abrams. He can reboot a franchise, but he can't keep it going. He understands the symbols, but not what they mean.

The third movie is the tragedy. Because while it's not a perfect movie, it was a really good Star Trek movie. It's a shame we didn't get to see that crew again.

 

[payn]

My personal take on the Kelvin Universe.

Yes, the casting was amazing (RIP Anton Yelchin .... ).

But when the first Kelvin movie came out, the franchise ... Star Trek ... it was pretty moribund. The first movie is Abrams at his best. LENS FLARES. ACTION. LENS FLARES. COMEDY. LENS FLARES. FAN SERVICE. LENS FLARES.

It's like getting on a superfast roller coaster ride while eating a bunch of cotton candy and having nostalgic scenes of Star Trek shown to you (but with LENS FLARES). You have a great time, you're happy, and at the end of the ride you're glad you did it ... so long as you don't think about it too much, and ignore the terrible pain in your stomach from all those empty calories.

By the second movie (Into Darkness) those tricks- the remixed nostalgia, the LENS FLARES, and the action/comedy/sugar rush have worn off, and you realize that it's just empty.

Such is life with Abrams. He can reboot a franchise, but he can't keep it going. He understands the symbols, but not what they mean.

The third movie is the tragedy. Because while it's not a perfect movie, it was a really good Star Trek movie. It's a shame we didn't get to see that crew again.

My tag line for Abrams was always; "love it when the credits roll; hate it by the time the car ride home is over"

 

[Fifth Element]

What's the point in making a new Barbarella if the only thing it shares with the original is the name? That's just an exploitative money grab, IMHO.

By original, are you referring to the Fonda film? That film was an adaptation to begin with. So one reason to make a new film can be to present a different interpretation of the comic.

Also, characterizing what I wrote as "the only thng it shares with the original is the name" is incredibly uncharitable. I didn't suggest anything like that.

 

[the Jester]

Also, characterizing what I wrote as "the only thng it shares with the original is the name" is incredibly uncharitable. I didn't suggest anything like that.

I apologize if I misrepresented your position; that certainly wasn't my intention. You asked why it should be true to the original, and I interpreted that as the money grab using the name as I described. My bad, I guess?