calbert: Van Helsing was one of the first three dvd's I received via mail from Netflix, I was so excited because it was actually in my mailbox the Tuesday that it was released on dvd (10-19-2004) thus saving me a trip to Blockbuster.

[farm8.staticflickr.com image 640x191]

At least you got the rating right. Well... almost. I don't know what stopped you from giving it one star.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

So, Van Helsing will be 6'5"?

AdolfOliverPanties: Problem is that Cruise can't really be anyone but Tom Cruise in a movie.

Will skullfark you for saying that:

This is the thread where people should be rallying against reboots in general. Not the star trek thread, as that series began 46 years ago but has been mostly alive, if not well, pretty steadily.

8 or so years for Van Helsing...too soon unless it's something fantastic, not just a high budget token effort.

Although, I did find the recent movie to be a bit cheesy. I don't know enough about the old Helsing tales to know if it was true to form or not.
Was worth it for Kate Beckinsale though.

What qualifies as a "handful of years"? 'Cause I would assume that's five years or less. By the time it comes out it will probably be ten years. That's a whole decade, kids!

Is Miss Cruise already trying to make amends for Rock of Ages?

/Fun Fact: The LA Times published their "Summer Movie Preview" edition of the Calendar section this past Sunday. In it there is a blurb about the fashions of Rock of Ages, which features Miss Cruise in a stunning fur number. However, in the paragraph describing the movie that includes the top billed stars (and maybe the director and/or writer), Miss Cruise's name is not mentioned. At all.
//I wonder why that is?

Hopefully this one has Kate Beckinsale in tight black pants too.

The project is part of a first-look production deal between Kurtzman and Orci's K/O Paper Products production company and Universal Pictures. As part of the deal, the pair will also develop a reboot of The Mummy with Prometheus screenwriter Jon Spaihts and producer Sean Daniel, who oversaw producing the last incarnation of the Mummy franchise.



You gotta be f*ckin' kidding...

Remake.

It's a movie, not a computer.

I might be going out on a limb here, but I don't think casting Hugh Jackman as Van Helsing was a problem with the movie.In fact, I thought it has solid casting, and art direction.

I thought Van Helsing was fine if you looked at it as a cheesy movie meant to capture the cheesiness of early horror movies.

Also I felt awesome that I figured out that Van Helsing was the ArchAngel Gabriel (since they only hinted at it instead of spelling it out).

What's the problem here? Take a crap movie that didn't live up to its potential and improve on it. That's how a reboot/remake should be done.

GreatGlavinsGhost: Is Miss Cruise already trying to make amends for Rock of Ages?

/Fun Fact: The LA Times published their "Summer Movie Preview" edition of the Calendar section this past Sunday. In it there is a blurb about the fashions of Rock of Ages, which features Miss Cruise in a stunning fur number. However, in the paragraph describing the movie that includes the top billed stars (and maybe the director and/or writer), Miss Cruise's name is not mentioned. At all.
//I wonder why that is?

Box office poison? It's why I lost interest in the Ghost Protocol trailer, and why my wife lost interest in the Rock of Ages trailer.

/never so happy to see Cruise on screen

Kaybeck: What's the problem here? Take a crap movie that didn't live up to its potential and improve on it. That's how a reboot/remake should be done.

Well, the notion is that if people didn't like it the first time around, they're not going to like it the second.

But the reality of the situation is that Hollywood has always remade under-performing films. The John Huston-directed Maltese Falcon was a remake of a movie released only a couple years earlier. The Judy Garland Wizard of Oz was not the first version made (second or third, I think) and The Great Gatsby has been filmed something like six times, to little success.

Oh God, that was an awful movie. Right up there with League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. And Yentl.

Dwight_Yeast: Kaybeck: What's the problem here? Take a crap movie that didn't live up to its potential and improve on it. That's how a reboot/remake should be done.

Well, the notion is that if people didn't like it the first time around, they're not going to like it the second.

I think it was Micheal Caine in a maxim interview, something along the lines of, " Everyone always remakes the good movies, why not the real crapfests?"

There is a good point in what you're saying, but there's always room for improvement in the crappy movies. There are a lot of crap movies that have some neat quirks or setups even if you don't want the whole thing, concepts can be cool but unfortunately come in a shiatty package.

Compare, Series 7(and others since, not exactly a new concept) with Hunger Games.
Was a crapfest B movie(interesting, but low budget terrible), maybe even straight to DVD, switch it up some, and it's a smash book and movie.
Enough similarities to make me wonder if the rights were purchased or something along those lines. Hell, if musicians can copyright a few notes in a row...Series 7, combined with the more dystopian Running Man, change the age of the characters and the easy ending and it writes itself.

Rebooting the still widely popular is a good business move, but taking a flawed work and crafting around it can result in some great money intake as well.

There has to be an Anne Rice joke in there somewhere.

FishyFred: calbert: Van Helsing was one of the first three dvd's I received via mail from Netflix, I was so excited because it was actually in my mailbox the Tuesday that it was released on dvd (10-19-2004) thus saving me a trip to Blockbuster.

[farm8.staticflickr.com image 640x191]

At least you got the rating right. Well... almost. I don't know what stopped you from giving it one star.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Ahhh the mammaries. Glistening, gauzy covered mammaries of the way vampires were.

I've heard that Platinum Dunes plans a Prometheus reboot sometime in early 2013.

Meh, there are other films from 2004 that I'd rather see remade. Like i,Robot; Alien vs. Predator, Troy, You Got Served & Soul Plane.

kab: Remake.

It's a movie, not a computer.

It could still be a reboot if it was a franchise. But it was one movie, so yeah, remake it is.

Is this the first time in movie history that a remake/reboot replaces the main character with a older actor than who originally played it?(And yes I know many actors have played Van Helsing but I mean the current action hero template)

Tsar_Bomba1: You gotta be f*ckin' kidding...

THIS. Is there a large segment of the movie-going public that's sitting at their computers going "Damn, we really NEED a Van Helsing reboot. And can while we're at it, isn't it time to remake The Mummy?" or is just another couple of hacks picking over the dead carcasses of other failures thinking they're the difference?

I "love" the logic of Hollywood: US grosses are down, so we're going to rely on foreign grosses from Russian, China and India = movies with lots of explosions and CGI and not very much dialogue = WIN! I guess the idea that US grosses are down because not everyone that likes movies is a 16-year old boy who will go see shiat with explosions and CGI six times or a tween girl who will go nuts over sparkly vampires kind of whizzes right past them. Hint: John Carter didn't fail relative to its cost because the marketing department didn't pick the right title or the ads weren't good enough, it's that there was no large constituency of people in the US dying for an effing John Carter movie.

I saw that LA Times summer movie roundup mentioned above and damn what depressing reading it was. Remakes of shiatty TV shows that were mocked when they originally aired but are now nostalgia inducers > the usual boring police/FBI/CIA movies ("He's a rebel who can't be bought off! He's going to remake the NYPD!!11!1!!") > insulting chick flicks starring Katherine Heigl and other TV "stars" > Saw and other gorefest ripoffs etc. etc.

/Get off my lawn or I'll force you damn kids to watch TCM 24/7

taxandspend: Meh, there are other films from 2004 that I'd rather see remade. Like i,Robot; Alien vs. Predator, Troy, You Got Served & Soul Plane.

I agree with this list.

I have no problem not watching this.

Ugh. Why re-make this pap?

I do have to give Cruise some props for MI: Ghost Protocol. Caught it on a flight to the east coast and picked up the Blu Ray stat. It's a good action movie. Pretty pure in its approach. Tom runs a lot, crap blows up, girls fight each other, amazing cinematography. Really like that flick.

sonnyboy11: Ugh. Why re-make this pap?

I do have to give Cruise some props for MI: Ghost Protocol. Caught it on a flight to the east coast and picked up the Blu Ray stat. It's a good action movie. Pretty pure in its approach. Tom runs a lot, crap blows up, girls fight each other, amazing cinematography. Really like that flick.

Was better than I figured it'd be. All I remember from the others is the support team dying a lot of the time and the masks, so that was cool in this one(aside from the masks, old schtick is old). That, and that the support this time wasn't the best, led to some decent comedy.

One of only two movies that I have actually walked out on.

The other was Basic Instinct.

I tried to give them both another chance on DVD, but shut them both off.

I don't think Cruise is right for this role nor could Lestat pull it off.



_{yeah yeah I know it was the Helsing with one L}

Kaybeck: What's the problem here? Take a crap movie that didn't live up to its potential and improve on it. That's how a reboot/remake should be done.

Yes that's how it should be done but we're talking Miss Cruise here. I don't think she's going to be able to pull off a good Van Helsing. So how is that improving on the one we already have?

He's great in the MI movies, well except the 3rd one, but in other things he just bombs. I'm honestly looking forward to Rock of Ages just for the mocking value. Get a bit tipsy pop in the DVD, I won't be paying theatre prices, & have at it.

I love the Van Helsing stories. Having him play such an iconic character, who's so not his personality, is just wrong. I know it's acting but I honestly don't see him being able to pull this off. It's going to end up like Interview With a Vampire. What could have been a great movie turned into a mockable turdfest. I loved everyone else in it & I'm not a Brad Pitt fan. Miss Cruise over acted as she usual does in dramatic films. Which isn't how Lestat should have been played. I say she should stick to jumping on couches & making MI movies. Leave the dramatic rolls to people who can actually act.

TKM: So, Van Helsing will be 6'5"?

And 250lbs no less....

/too soon man

AdolfOliverPanties:

Problem is that Cruise can't really be anyone but Tom Cruise in a movie.

.

Not sure if serious.jpg





/yep.... just plays himself

Skr: I don't think Cruise is right for this role nor could Lestat pull it off.

[media.animevice.com image 640x512]

yeah yeah I know it was the Helsing with one L

Now that is a movie I'd love to see.

gmoney101: AdolfOliverPanties:

Problem is that Cruise can't really be anyone but Tom Cruise in a movie.

.

Not sure if serious.jpg

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 440x280]
[por-img.cimcontent.net image 346x400]
[www.joblo.com image 450x253]

/yep.... just plays himself

So you've cherry picked three character roles out of a career which has LARGELY consisted of him playing the same character. Well done.

It's what I think of as the John Wayne conundrum: you get famous for playing a particular type of role and you get powerful in Hollywood, so you start producing your own movies. You know that what the audience will pay money to see is you playing that role, so you start having scripts written for that role; you typecast yourself, and as you get older, it gets less and less believable.

Travolta seems to be having the same problem. I just watched "From Paris with Love", which would have been an excellent film if Travolta's role had been played by someone at least 20 years younger. Were I casting the film, I would have given his part to Rhys Myers and cast someone like Topher Grace as the guy from the American consulate.

I hear they are almost ready to announce casting for the Avengers reboot.

gmoney101:

/yep.... just plays himself

Lestat always seemed pretty gay to me.

Dwight_Yeast: So you've cherry picked three character roles out of a career which has LARGELY consisted of him playing the same character. Well done.

AdolfOliverPanties:

Problem is that Cruise can't really be anyone but Tom Cruise in a movie.

Blind or stupid?

Knight and Day same guy as Collateral too?

ArcadianRefugee: gmoney101: [www.joblo.com image 450x253]

/yep.... just plays himself

Lestat always seemed pretty gay to me.

ha ha , well played

Mugato: Gee, do you think? He and Brad Pitt were Burt and Ernie gay. But I think that's what they were going for.

I think Cruise is a good actor so flame away, no pun intended. It used to be that he only played the cocky young douchebag but that was a long time ago.

"Hay guise? What's going on in this thread??"

How about instead of remaking all this crap we kick Lucas in the balls and get the Star Wars franchise opened for other movies that don't deal with Dark farking Vader and whining moisture farmers?

A cop movie on Corellia.

An anti-hero movie on Kessel.

How about a goddamn BOUNTY HUNTER franchise? Fark, I could write a good enough set of three screenplays that would keep half of you doling out cash every year.