Tarantino will remake in 2009! OFFICIAL!!
-
xenomega — 18 years ago(February 15, 2008 09:14 PM)
LET IT BEIT HAS BEEN NEARLY TWENTY ONE YEARS SINCE THE ORIGINALA BEAUTIFUL INTERPRETATION OF AN EVEN MORE INTENSE NOVELTHE TIME HAS COME AND GONE, YET THE FACT OF THE ORIGINAL'S PERTINANCE STILL CARRIES ONJUST LET IT BE, AND FIND SOME OTHER DEAD HORSE TO RESURRECT AND CRITICIZETHIS TREND OF REMAKES JUST EXHIBITS THE TRUE INABILITY OF THE "CREATIVE" MINDS BEHIND MODERN FILM TO ACTUALLY CREATE SOMETHING TRUE TO THEMSELVESPROCREATE, DO NOT MERELY ADOPT SOMEONE ELSE'S VISION.
-
bono_vox_is_god — 17 years ago(May 23, 2008 10:03 AM)
Here Here, this movie, although extremely flawed, is quite good. I will say that I haven't read the book, but i have read other of BEE books and I write a lot of screenplays, and I can imagine, that his books would be hard to adapt to the screen.
Considering the subject matter, what he writes, and the way it is written.
BUT BACK TO THE POINT- For what it is, the movie is good. It really had me there at the end. Given that if anyone has ever partaken in drugs, they would know that some of the film's portrayal is true, and some false. I thought that the family aspect, the way Julian's father reacted was very true. The way serious drug abuse can tear apart a family.
Downey Jr is simply magnificent. Doing what he does best (playing eccentric, likable, yet flawed characters). McCarthy is pretty painful as is, that good looking girl (can't recall her name) off The Lost Boys.
A would call Less Than Zero a confused film if anything, it wants to be a message film, preaching about the ails of drug abuse and the effect it has on the youth of the world, yet the film tries to hard to be cool- with that 80's soundtrack blasting in your ear. -
screamingangel9 — 17 years ago(December 03, 2008 10:26 PM)
okay, i apologize if anyone already made this point, because i read the majority of the first page and got so worked up that i cant read anymore of this bull*.
i'm sorry people but the movie blew, it really did.
it was worse seeing as the book is incredible and the movie was nothing relating to the book, in fact it was a complete 180.
so everyone saying that they thought it was true to BEE's style is insane, and appears you haven't read any of his books, and even if you have seen his other movie adaptions you should know less than zero (movie) was nothing like him.
and as far as anyone who is complaining about how hollywood should stop making remakes of movies, if QT or anyone chose to "remake" this movie, i would not consider it a remake of the "original" less than zero movie, it would be making a more appropriate and true to form adaption of BEE's novel.
i'm sorry, but get a clue people -
JackfnBurton — 18 years ago(March 08, 2008 09:53 PM)
Many people rip on the 1987 film for not being a faithful adaptation of the book - and it's not - but it does pretty effectively capture the tone of the novel, and manages to distill the hopeless world the literary characters inhabit more or less into one character - Julian. I suppose they could have shot the book faithfully but I am not so sure a movie like that could have been made in 1987, or at least taken seriously as anything more than exploitative shock cinema. Often, a big part of adapting books for film is capturing the tone of the work first, and then connecting with as many details as you can. Not every aspect of every novel can be successfully adapted to film, for a variety of reasons. This is why, if you want the book, read the book. If you want the movie, well - it may or may not match up but you have to decide whether enough of the dots are connected to get the picture.
In the case of Less Than Zero, I say yes. -
shell_shock524 — 18 years ago(March 10, 2008 04:00 AM)
Now ive never seen the movie but from what i understand is that clay is not portrayed the same way as he is in the novel, and i think thats a crutial part to the book, because yea everyone else can be hopless but the big thing that hit me was the main character was that far gone as well. yea also on another note the way QT does dialouge in his movies IMO would match BEE's writting verry well and could turn out a good movie if its true.
-
callernumber666 — 18 years ago(March 24, 2008 01:29 AM)
You are going to have to provide a more detailed link to the info gave.. the only info regarding Tarantino and LTZ on the wiki link you posted was this-
Director Quentin Tarantino has expressed interest in filming a much more faithful adaptation of the book.
How does that confirm a remake for 2009?
I myself would not like to see a remake done, as I love the original, and Hollywood is spewing out too many re-makes already.
As a Tarantino fan I say 'Quentin, please dont fall into the remake trap, and get busy writing something new!'
You're Perfect Yes It's True. But Without Me You're Only You -
The_Crimson_Pig — 17 years ago(April 16, 2008 02:34 PM)
As far as I'm concerned it wouldn't be a remake, it would be a second chance for a great book to get the film it deserves. This film was like someone was eager to make the film and became terrified of it, the book wasn't a formulaic 'say no to drugs' story. The main character would wake up and snort 2 lines of coke and constantly ask himself "Should I snort the rest of my coke now or later?"
A remake could be more than an average 80s film, it could be a great social satire. Hell, Julian doesn't even appear in the book that much, it would be a totally different movie. The relationship with Blair is a whole other story, it's like they couldn't be bothered with it, it's one of the best parts of the novel.
Last Film Seen: Amadeus
"Either Uwe Boll goes or I do" Oscar Wilde -
livingdead70 — 17 years ago(April 22, 2008 07:16 PM)
Leave stuff alone !!!!
A remake , will be full of bad acting horrilbe rap music and just really doesnt need to exist. They will skew it towards teenagers and that will kill it.
The orignal is fine, write something new for a change. -
The_Crimson_Pig — 17 years ago(April 25, 2008 07:46 AM)
The original was not fine! Read the beep book. A lot of people have read the book and thought "This would make a good movie", then it was a movie that wasn't even close to the book.
Not only that, but this movie was poorly written.
Surely it says something to you that the author of the book was so ashamed of what they did to his story that he didn't attend the premiere.
Last Film Seen: Casablanca
"Either Uwe Boll goes or I do" Oscar Wilde -
projectcyclops — 17 years ago(May 02, 2008 09:17 AM)
Tarantino would be all wrong, plus he's not made a good film since 1997. Avery's Rules of Attraction didn't work because it too Tarantino-ish. American Psycho is the best screen adaptation so far (not seen The Informers yet).
I'm all for a re-make (or re-boot or re-imagining, whatever) of Less Than Zero, but a less gimmicky director would suit better. All of this, just my opinion. -
findanddestroyatlantis — 17 years ago(May 13, 2008 02:12 PM)
This movie needs to be done true to the novel rather it's Tarantino or someone else. The people who don't want it to be "remade" seem to act like it's some sort of classic, when in fact it's just a mediocre movie based on a good book.
Apart from the character's names, the setting and a few other details this movie isn't at all like the book and I'd love to see someone take a crack at Ellis' story in earnest.