Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Mon 13/05/24 08:24:48 GMT |
Message # 13424.1.1.1 Subject: Re: Re: Re: question about flim Date: Mon 29/11/04 17:56:05 GMT Name: MK Email: wamtec@compuserve.com |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
It's called laziness and lack of creativity and how to make a fast buck. Instead of having to develop new concepts and use writers....just re-hash old stuff.
That is why about 50% of the programming these days are reality tv shows...cos they require no actors and no writers....just rent a big house or dump some people on an island...and all you have to do is film whatever they say or do. Same goes for talk shows too....a cheap way to produce shows that make a lot of money.
The 1960's and 70's were so much more interesting....i.e. tv specials and variety shows...whatever happened to variety shows...those were great.
These days...the formula is....if a movie makes money....then rush out and make a sequel....and now the new trend....lets make the 2nd and 3rd sequel at the same time...it saves money...e.g. as they did with the Matrix films...and now they are doing the same thing with Disney's hit PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN. The first film was a hit and made loads of bucks...so now they are busy shooting the 2nd and 3rd film back to back at same time.
mk |
In reply to Message (13424.1.1) Re: Re: question about flim
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Mon 29/11/04 04:06:35 GMT Hmm... perhaps the casting director for that movie should have at least skimmed the baywatch roster for an actress who could fill out a t-shirt more like jackie b. did (even if they can't act).
BTW (off topic)... what is with hollywood these days? All these remakes!
The Deep/Into the Blue The Italian Job Ocean's Eleven (and sequel to the remake Ocean's Twelve!) Flight of the Phoenix
...and those are just a few recent examples... so much for imagination!
|
In reply to Message (13424.1) Re: question about flim
By MK - wamtec@compuserve.com Mon 29/11/04 03:54:52 GMT The reason they never heard of it....is because
a) it is "into the blue" not into the deep.. and
b) it has not yet been released in movie theatres....so your "shop" is not likely to see on video until at least 6 months later.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0378109/
The film is a supposed re-make the original THE DEEP....but having a waife like Jessica Alba play the role originally played by a voluptuous Jacqueline Bisset....is about as ridiculous as having an anorexic Sarah Michelle Geller playing voluptous Daphne on Scooby Doo.
Surely the producers of INTO THE DEEP knew they were heading into trouble and miscasting the wrong actress to do this re-make....cos what was the very first thing Jessica Alba did....she demanded it be written into her contract that she would NOT have to re-enact the famous Jackie Bisset wet t shirt scene..and she refused to be in wet t shirt style scenes in the film.
NEXT BIT OF HILARIOUS MISCASTING....watch the new Gilligan's island reality tv series on TBS channel tomorrow night. There are 2 celebrities play each of the 2 characters from the show...i.e. 2 gingers...will go up against 2 Mary Annes. OK...so one of the gingers is played by Rod Stewarts expired-wives Rachel Hunter (Rod likes to change wives once they hit 30)..Rachel is statuesque and as tall as the 6 foot original Tina Louise...thats ok. But the other Ginger is played by....Nicole Eggert !!!...huh....she is 5 feet nothing...what is that supposed to be....a "mini me" version of Ginger....ha ha
But the previews look very nice...lots of wetlook and the cast wear all the same outfits...
mk
|
In reply to Message (13424) question about flim
By darren t - Sun 28/11/04 19:59:13 GMT There was a post here a few days ago about flim called "into the deep" it had a pic with it with this guy and gril underwater is this the right title for the flim as my shop said never herad of this flim, any 1 help me out!! |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.033 seconds to generate ]