Clash of the Titans remake - first trailer

[Gavin Greenwalt]

When, if ever, will these studio execs get a clue about remakes and franchises?

Uhhh yeah a remake of a campy, cheesy, formulaic film which itself was a remake of a story retold and remade 100,000 times over the centuries that manages to earn $400,000,000? When will they learn!?!

By the way, fun side note: Sam Worthington starred films in the last 6 months have made more than $3B.

 

[Michael McVicar]

Maybe now he can hire a dialect coach for his aussie accent that keeps popping up haphazardly.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Clash has only made $145,639,000 domestically. That's chicken scratch, considering its budget. If Clash had been done correctly, it could have made three or four times as much money. It's a damn-near perfect mythological story, and a terrific vehicle for new FX. Look how much money Dark Knight and Avatar made. Good movies make far, far more money than crap ones.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I totally agree with you Tom. Clash sucked. It could have been 100X better and would have performed at least twice as good at the box office had it not been for the terrible butchering of the story to make the stupid-ass script they had, the mediocre FX work, cheesy action sequences, etc.. My brother talked me into going and I figured I would just to see if it was as bad as the trailer made it look. In that regard, I was not disappointed. What a stinker.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Sheesh. That sounds bad. I haven't even seen it yet. I was thinking about checking it out tomorrow, just to see how badly they butchered what to me was a dream opportunity for a remake. Maybe I will pay to see Kick-Ass then sneak into Clash just to see for myself.

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

What blows me away is how they decided to do the Post-3D process and how terribly it's been received, same as Alice in Wonderland. It's clearly a shitty way to do 3D, but they do it anyway! And Green Hornet and Last Airbender are now following suit. Whaa?

 

[Brad Webb]

Here is my review of Clash:

They took everything that was bad about the original and made it better, yet took everything that was great about the original and made it terrible.

I saw it in 3-D (because I just had to see how bad it would look) and it was just a joke. It was worse than I thought it would be. There were ZERO shots that were made cool by the 3-D. You would think one would work on accident. I can do the same thing in Final Cut (although you have to wear the red and blue glasses).

According to CHUD, at one point this was going to be a good movie. http://www.chud.com/articles/articl...ASH-OF-THE-TITANS-YOU-DIDN039T-SEE/Page1.html

 

[Rick Burnett]

I've not seen it yet either, and I was a HUGE fan of the original when I was a little kid. I'll probably see it, but not in 3D. After seeing Alice in Wonderland in 3D I CANNOT wait for the 2D version to come out. The 3D in Avatar was SO MUCH better (and I know that they actually shot in 3D for Avatar).

EVERYONE that I know that's seen AiW or CotT thought the 3D was annoying and horrible. A few people didn't like Avatar, but mostly because of the shallow DoF 3D shots.

With ALL THE MONEY that gets spent on these, I just don't understand how they can screw up these things SO BAD! I don't have any insight into the industry to that level, but I feel like some people with money are just TOTALLY out of touch with reality.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The #1, absolute, rock-solid, most crucial piece of the pie when it comes to remakes and franchises is getting an insanely talented director on board who has a strong connection to the material. All other matters are of little significance. Everything stems from the director, including the script, cast, locations, FX -- everything. This cannot be stated strongly enough. Yet somehow, Hollywood for the most part has not figured this out. Why do they keep hiring these hack directors and somehow hoping that it will come out good?

 

[M Most]

The #1, absolute, rock-solid, most crucial piece of the pie when it comes to remakes and franchises is getting an insanely talented director on board who has a strong connection to the material. All other matters are of little significance. Everything stems from the director, including the script, cast, locations, FX -- everything. This cannot be stated strongly enough. Yet somehow, Hollywood for the most part has not figured this out. Why do they keep hiring these hack directors and somehow hoping that it will come out good?

I'm not being facetious here, I'm just curious - who would you consider NOT a hack director? In other words, aside from Terry Malick, who do you feel is a director worthy of respect?

This is not a trick question, as I said, I'm just curious.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Nolan, Aronofsky, Tarantino, PTA, Cameron, Coen Bros, Wong Kar-wai, etc.

Depending on the project, maybe Fincher, Mann, Mendes, Cronenberg and so on.

Having a talented director who connects with the material is not a guarantee of success -- check Hulk and Miami Vice -- but it hugely increases the odds of making a great remake or franchise picture. Nolan is a perfect example with Batman.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Great list. I definitely agree with the 'depending on the project' with Fincher. The 3rd Aliens movie upsets me to no end.

Ridley Scott is also another of my favorites.

 

[M Most]

Nolan, Aronofsky, Tarantino, PTA, Cameron, Coen Bros, Wong Kar-wai, etc.

Depending on the project, maybe Fincher, Mann, Mendes, Cronenberg and so on.

Having a talented director who connects with the material is not a guarantee of success -- check Hulk and Miami Vice -- but it hugely increases the odds of making a great remake or franchise picture. Nolan is a perfect example with Batman.

I think that's a reasonable list. But going back to your "question" as to why studios pick particular directors, studios are businesses. They are always looking for the best chance at financial success. They know that a part of that is attracting respected artists to the studio - which is why they will make smaller pictures with lesser known directors on occasion - but for the most part, they must be responsible as a business. So when I look at your list, I think a few stand out as being uniquely able to bring artistic sensitivity, ability to handle large projects, and an ability to deliver commercial success, and all three are really necessary for an extended career with a lot of choices. Certainly Chris Nolan, Jim Cameron, and to a lesser extent Quentin Tarantino have proven their ability to deliver on all of these things (personally, I would probably add Marty Scorsese, Spielberg, and perhaps Ridley Scott to that list). The rest have produced interesting projects and occasionally found commercial success as well (the Coens, for instance), but I'm not sure the Darren Aronofskys and PT Andersons will really get to that point. Not that they necessarily want to, but part of a director's job is to deliver on at least some commercial promise, because if that isn't the case, they will likely have to find their own financing. And we know how that's going these days.

They don't call it show Business for nothing. Commercial success is not in itself a bad thing. And lack of it is not necessarily a good thing. There are good and bad directors in both categories.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

The #1, absolute, rock-solid, most crucial piece of the pie when it comes to remakes and franchises is getting an insanely talented director on board who has a strong connection to the material. All other matters are of little significance. Everything stems from the director, including the script, cast, locations, FX -- everything. This cannot be stated strongly enough. Yet somehow, Hollywood for the most part has not figured this out. Why do they keep hiring these hack directors and somehow hoping that it will come out good?

Tom, Leterrier is not what I would call a hack director, he's pretty solid and with a good sense of pacing, staging and editing for action scenes, far better in my opinion than Nolan for example. And a talented director with a strong connection to the material is not a shoe in either, as evidenced by Watchmen, which although stylistically flawless felt like chewing cardboard. But let's not forget that fewer and fewer directors really get to have any real saying anymore, as the meddling of studio execs permeates to more and more aspects of film making than it ever did before. The divide between the directors with clout and the ones with none is widening at alarming rates. There were always Spielbergs, Camerons, and Lucases, people with the power to do pretty much whatever they pleased, but there were also the Manns, the Malicks and the Scorceses, witout huge financial clout but able to create their visions unmolested. Nowadays, except for the very names I mention above, what new helmers have achieved any such independence? None to my knowledge. new These directors are being hired as music video directors of sorts, to create interesting shots with strong visuals and stage scenes in an interesting manner, but they have zero input on script rewrites, casting (could Worthington be any less interesting?) or any other fundamental changes that can/should be made once production is underway that become obvious solutions to obvious problems, but yet, they are given no real power at all. Directors have become sort of like camera operators, crafted technicians that follow the DP's every instruction but have no saying, get no credit, and all the blame. And in the case of a camera operator, that's ok, but a director who is really not allowed to direct....

 

[Brad Webb]

Zak Snyder is the only director to reach this independance On big budget films in the last 10 years.

Alien 3 is a prime example of studio meddling. This was one of if not the first big pic for Fincher, and he battled the studio execs throughout the entire course of the movie. I can't remember the specifics off hand but they basically took the movie away from him, and he had no say.

If you read the CHUD link I posted it appears the same may have happened on clash.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Zak Snyder is the only director to reach this independance On big budget films in the last 10 years.

Alien 3 is a prime example of studio meddling. This was one of if not the first big pic for Fincher, and he battled the studio execs throughout the entire course of the movie. I can't remember the specifics off hand but they basically took the movie away from him, and he had no say.

If you read the CHUD link I posted it appears the same may have happened on clash.

Is this true of the directors cut as well? (curious) Because the whole beginning of that movie is probably the most disappointed I have EVER been in a movie EVER.

 

[Tom Lowe]

The rest have produced interesting projects and occasionally found commercial success as well (the Coens, for instance), but I'm not sure the Darren Aronofskys and PT Andersons will really get to that point. Not that they necessarily want to, but part of a director's job is to deliver on at least some commercial promise, because if that isn't the case, they will likely have to find their own financing. And we know how that's going these days.

Yeah but who would have thought of Nolan -- best known at the time for a tiny, intellectual $5 million indie called "Memento" -- as the potential savior of the multi-billion-dollar Batman franchise? They took a chance on Nolan's talent and on him as a director, and it paid off spectacularly.

Mike, do not underestimate Darren Aronofsky. He's probably the most talented director this side of Malick. BTW, Aronofsky is attached in pre-production to a Robocop reboot... so maybe someone at MGM has been reading my rants here! :sifone:

 

[Omar Saad]

Nolan, Aronofsky, Tarantino, PTA, Cameron, Coen Bros, Wong Kar-wai, etc.

Depending on the project, maybe Fincher, Mann, Mendes, Cronenberg and so on.

Having a talented director who connects with the material is not a guarantee of success -- check Hulk and Miami Vice -- but it hugely increases the odds of making a great remake or franchise picture. Nolan is a perfect example with Batman.

Tom, while I agree with your list, I would say that Mann, Cronenberg, and especially Fincher should be on there without qualification. They have each had a misstep or two but, they have always maintained a high level of artistic integrity (IMHO).

Mike, I definitely agree that Scorsese, Spielberg, and Ridley Scott should be added to the list.

I'd also say that throw Gus Van Sant in the mix and possibly the Wachowski Bros. There are dozens of other great directors that could go on the non-hack list, I'm not sure they necessarily have a track record of delivering huge box office.

 

[Brad Webb]

The dirt on Alien 3> http://website.lineone.net/~darkangel5/alien3war.htm

My favorite example of retarded studio meddling comes from Planet of the Apes. From wikipedia:


By 1993, Fox hired Don Murphy and Jane Hamsher as producers. Sam Raimi and Oliver Stone were being considered as possible directors,[12][14] though Stone signed on as executive producer/co-writer with a $1 million salary.[15] On the storyline, Stone explained in December 1993, "It has the discovery of cryogenically frozen Vedic Apes who hold the secret numeric codes to the Bible that foretold the end of civilizations. It deals with past versus the future. My concept is that there's a code inscribed in the Bible that predicts all historical events. The apes were there at the beginning and figured it all out."[16]

Stone brought Terry Hayes to write the screenplay entitled Return of the Apes.[15] Set in the near future, a plague is making humans extinct. Geneticist Will Robinson discovers the plague is a genetic time bomb embedded in the Stone Age. He time travels with a pregnant colleague named Billie Rae Diamond to a time when Palaeolithic humans were at war for the future of the planet with highly-evolved apes. Robinson and Billie Rae discover a young human girl named Aiv (pronounced Eve) to be the next step in evolution. They protect her from the virus, thus ensuring the survival of the human race 102,000 years later. Billie Rae gives birth to a baby boy named Adam.[15]

Fox president Peter Chernin called Return of the Apes "one of the best scripts I ever read".[15] Chernin was hoping Hayes' script would create a franchise that included sequels, spin-off television shows and merchandise.[17] In March 1994, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed on as Will Robinson with the condition he had approval of director. Chuck Russell was considered as a possible director before Phillip Noyce was hired in January 1995, while pre-production was nearly commencing with a $100 million budget.[14] Stone first approached Rick Baker, who worked on Adam Rifkin's failed remake, to design the prosthetic makeup, but eventually hired Stan Winston.[17][18]

Fox became frustrated by the distance between their approach and Hayes' interpretation of Stone's ideas, as producer Don Murphy put it, "Terry wrote a Terminator and Fox wanted The Flintstones".[15] Fox studio executive Dylan Sellers felt the script could be improved by comedy. "What if Robinson finds himself in Ape land and the Apes are trying to play baseball? But they're missing one element, like the pitcher or something." Sellers continued. "Robinson knows what they're missing and he shows them, and they all start playing."[15] Sellers refused to give up his baseball scene, and when Hayes turned in the next script, sans baseball, Sellers fired him. Dissatisfied with Sellers' decision to fire Hayes, Noyce left Return of the Apes in February 1995 to work on The Saint.[14][15]

Oliver Stone pursued other films of his own, Peter Chernin was replaced by Thomas Rothman, and a drunken Dylan Sellers crashed his car, killing a much-loved colleague and earning jail time, while producers Don Murphy and Jane Hamsher were paid off.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Memento was amazing and I really enjoyed they included the short story that was the inspiration of the movie in the DVD release.

I can't say I'm excited about a Robocop reboot. Almost every sequel or remake as been VERY disappointing. Or, what annoys me to absolutely no end, is when they slap a 2 on a movie that has NOTHING to do with the first one. I saw 'The Cell 2' the other day and thought, wow, the cinematography in that film is FANTASTIC. In fact, the DVD release allows you to just listen to the score and watch the movie without any dialog I started reading about the second one, NOTHING AT ALL to do with the first one.