A Van Helsing thread and no pictures of Kate Beckinsale? Off to GIS...

gmoney101: 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?

Knight and Day: Played smarmy killer
Collateral: Played smarmy killer

Nope, nope, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no

Why not rachet up the fun factor and make it a "Top Gun" reunion?

Cast Cruise as Helsing and Val Kilmer as the van.

No no no they got that wrong. it's a Van Halen reboot he's working on.

I would weep for Hollywood, but I ran out of tears long ago...

The only thing I remember about Van Helsing (or want to remember)

Dwight_Yeast: 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.

Agreed, I didn't see the movie, but, from what I gathered of Rhys Meyers' character, the actor just seems too worldly for that role.

And, for the most part, Cruise does seem stuck in that loop, I think the only lead performance that, IMHO, he didn't "play himself" was in the Last Samurai, and I really enjoyed that.

Well, I didn't see the first one, and I probably won't see this, either. While raging on the internet accomplishes nothing, choosing not to spend my money on it is the only form of protest I have.\

Enough with the sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, and reimaginings.

I find it funny that people complain about reboots today, but hollywood has been re-booting movies since its inception.

Mr.Poops: I find it funny that people complain about reboots today, but hollywood has been re-booting movies since its inception.

Not at the level that it is done now. My complaint is that that there are probably piles of scripts for good movies sitting around gathering dust while studios are throwing money at the new Transformers crapfest.

AdolfOliverPanties: When Tom Cruise is in a movie, he never disappears into the role. It is always Tom Cruise, with Tom Cruise affectations coming out, despite the difference in character. He is not as much an actor as a movie star.

He's not the only one this happens to, obviously, and I like several of his films.

Hai Guys!

Orgasmatron138: Mr.Poops: I find it funny that people complain about reboots today, but hollywood has been re-booting movies since its inception.

Not at the level that it is done now. My complaint is that that there are probably piles of scripts for good movies sitting around gathering dust while studios are throwing money at the new Transformers crapfest.

Look at Hollywood in the 30s - 50s -- HUNDREDS of reboots, many reboots of 30s and 40s horror movies and TONS of reboots of 50s Sci-Fi movies. It was just as prevalent back then as it is now, it's just that because everybody is so connected (and disconnected) with the internet these days it just seems like it's happening more often. Hollywood likes reboots because you don't have to produce an original screenplay and you've got source material to emulate. Not only that, it piques interest with the audience: "Ooooooh, a Van Helsing remake! The first one was ok, I wonder if this will be any better -- AND IT'S STARRING TOM CRUISE!? I LOVED HIM IN RISKY BUSINESS!!!!" $$$$

Mr.Poops: Orgasmatron138: Mr.Poops: I find it funny that people complain about reboots today, but hollywood has been re-booting movies since its inception.

Not at the level that it is done now. My complaint is that that there are probably piles of scripts for good movies sitting around gathering dust while studios are throwing money at the new Transformers crapfest.

Look at Hollywood in the 30s - 50s -- HUNDREDS of reboots, many reboots of 30s and 40s horror movies and TONS of reboots of 50s Sci-Fi movies. It was just as prevalent back then as it is now, it's just that because everybody is so connected (and disconnected) with the internet these days it just seems like it's happening more often. Hollywood likes reboots because you don't have to produce an original screenplay and you've got source material to emulate. Not only that, it piques interest with the audience: "Ooooooh, a Van Helsing remake! The first one was ok, I wonder if this will be any better -- AND IT'S STARRING TOM CRUISE!? I LOVED HIM IN RISKY BUSINESS!!!!" $$$$

I disagree with your premise that there were hundreds of remakes; a cursory google search doesn't give me many results.

Has anyone done statistical research on this? Maybe a ratio of remakes/original films (so we can correct for varying numbers of movies made year to year).

Also, I understand WHY they do it. I just hate that they do.

Mugato: Gary Oldman is an example of a chameleon actor. I wouldn't immediately guess that the guy who played Dracula, the guy who thought he was black in True Romance, the killer in Leon, the arch villain in The Sixth Sense and Commissioner Gordon were the same guy.

My go-to Oldman example is the guy who went from Sid Vicious to Ludwig van Beethoven, but I agree. I didn't realize that was him in the first Batman movie until it was almost over.

Mugato: AdolfOliverPanties: When Tom Cruise is in a movie, he never disappears into the role. It is always Tom Cruise, with Tom Cruise affectations coming out, despite the difference in character. He is not as much an actor as a movie star.

I think there are very few well known actors that you can't say that about, even ones who have won Academy Awards. I think it's unavoidable when you get to a certain level of exposure. Even guys like Alan Rickman, who is one of my favorite actors and played IMO the best villain in any movie in the last 30 years (no not the guy with the wand, the guy with the machine gun), he's still sort of Alan Rickman in most of his roles. And that's not really a necessarily bad thing.

Gary Oldman is an example of a chameleon actor. I wouldn't immediately guess that the guy who played Dracula, the guy who thought he was black in True Romance, the killer in Leon, the arch villain in The Sixth Sense and Commissioner Gordon were the same guy.

I guess if a hack comedian can do an impression of you that everyone gets, maybe you're playing the same character. But I don't know, Tom Cruise seems to pull it off without doing the exact same character. I'm a big fan of Collateral, for instance.

/marking out to Tom Cruise, is that worth a couple levels of Scientology?

Well, I'll agree in the fact that I think most actors bring a lot of their own views, personality, and traits into a character and very few ever really disappear when they're big stars, but I think it's just more obnoxious with some than others, Cruise being one of the more salient stars that does that. Stallone, Ahnold, Statham, really any action star that you can name...and I think the art of being a chameleon is too rare in Hollywood. Johnny Depp switches up his characters enough, but it's always a quirky, wacky twist on something.

/still lurve me some Jack Sparrow, however
//why is the rum always gone?

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.

I was bored to tears by ghost protocol, and it's plot made less than no sense.

As far as Van Helsing: the movie was cool until the third act, when it went from semi camp action movie with vampires to Dracula vs the wolf man. If they correct that, it'll be a cool flick. I don't have a real problem with them remaking it or not, but then again the last movie I saw in theatres was captain America. And I couldn't tell you the last one before that.

I saw a test screening of this movie and left one of the longest rants ever on my comment card. It was something along the lines of 'If I wanted to watch two poorly CG'd figures slug it out, I would turn on my Playstation and load in a video game.'

Only far longer and full of more cursing.

I think it was better than the final print only because I could imagine some of the FX in my head and they were much better looking.

Kurtzman, Orci and Cruise?

FFS, just call it Castlevania if that's the kind of fail you're aiming for...

Orgasmatron138: Mr.Poops: Orgasmatron138: Mr.Poops: I find it funny that people complain about reboots today, but hollywood has been re-booting movies since its inception.

Not at the level that it is done now. My complaint is that that there are probably piles of scripts for good movies sitting around gathering dust while studios are throwing money at the new Transformers crapfest.

Look at Hollywood in the 30s - 50s -- HUNDREDS of reboots, many reboots of 30s and 40s horror movies and TONS of reboots of 50s Sci-Fi movies. It was just as prevalent back then as it is now, it's just that because everybody is so connected (and disconnected) with the internet these days it just seems like it's happening more often. Hollywood likes reboots because you don't have to produce an original screenplay and you've got source material to emulate. Not only that, it piques interest with the audience: "Ooooooh, a Van Helsing remake! The first one was ok, I wonder if this will be any better -- AND IT'S STARRING TOM CRUISE!? I LOVED HIM IN RISKY BUSINESS!!!!" $$$$

I disagree with your premise that there were hundreds of remakes; a cursory google search doesn't give me many results.

Has anyone done statistical research on this? Maybe a ratio of remakes/original films (so we can correct for varying numbers of movies made year to year).

Also, I understand WHY they do it. I just hate that they do.

First, I need to preface this with a disclaimer: The use of the words "reboot" and "remake" are very broad. I did not know this until you actually got me to look. It would appear this article's definition of remake is to create a movie from ANY source (any media format be it book, audio, historical document, passed down oral tradition, etc.). Which would mean the only true non remakes are movies that were literally conjured up from the script writer's minds. To me, that is too broad of a term. It is extremely difficult to find just a list of movies that are remakes of previous movies.

Here are historical reboot/remakes by the broad definition. To me this just doesn't fit your question properly. But check this out. It is still not exact if you want to claim that movie adaptations of Broadway/teleplay/stage acts are not really remakes/reboots.
Finally, this lists movie reboots currently in the making. A quick scan looked legit to being movies retelling other movies.

My personal option on the matter is that there are two major times where a reboot is "called for" or acceptable: Major advancement in cinematic technology (i.e. silent to audio, black and white to color), or the original was terrible (that's based on opinion...). For example, look at the Universal Dracula (1931) which is basically a remake of the silent film Nosferatu (1922). Then you have Horror of Dracula (1958) which is in color.

The Van Helsing reboot fits into the second reason. The one from a few years ago is so bad, it really should be redone. Hey, it worked for the 2003 Hulk film vs the 2008 one (personal opinion).

addy2: What about a third, when you'd like to see another actor's take on the same role?

That would fall into the "terrible movie" reason. If I am looking to see a different acting approach to the same role chances are I didn't like the previous one. If I liked the first, it would immediately put a bias against the second. Every conversation would just degenerate into a "which actor played the best Joker" type argument. Again, it would be because my second reason is opinion based.

God I hated that movie. Dude plays Castlevania as a kid, finds out it's cheaper to rework some stuff than to pay for the rights and doesn't want to suffer the wrath of gamers, makes CG crapfest.

That movie annoyed the crap out of me. My girlfriend kept getting all hot and bothered by the guy playing Dracula.

Extra weird because he was her ex-husband.

addy2: Genju: addy2: What about a third, when you'd like to see another actor's take on the same role?

That would fall into the "terrible movie" reason. If I am looking to see a different acting approach to the same role chances are I didn't like the previous one. If I liked the first, it would immediately put a bias against the second. Every conversation would just degenerate into a "which actor played the best Joker" type argument. Again, it would be because my second reason is opinion based.
You think? I can see two actors with two approaches being equally interesting. But perhaps that's best left for the stage where the money for another production isn't so prohibitive.

But would you justify seeing a whole movie done over just to see one actor's different approach to something you already liked? I guess I just don't have that much time these days to do something like that.

/sadly the last movie I've seen in theaters I believe was X-Men: First Class.

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.


DeNiro (now) has this same problem. The only thing I've seen him in remotely recently where he wasn't doing the retired wise-guy / cop vibe was Stone. You could also extend this to Pacino, Spacey, Clooney, pretty much most actors that are at least considered worthwhile, or even average. But Cruise is extra cool to hate because of the whole scientology thing I suppose.

That movie had more conveniently placed ropes than a Klan meeting at Tarzan's house.

Tom Cruise being crazy doesn't mean he's a bad actor. Think about it this way. A normal actor pretending to be a secret agent in a film has to make the leap from regular person to highly skilled super serious spy. Tom Cruise pretending to be a secret agent in a film has to make the leap from batshiat insane closeted cult member to highly skilled super serious spy. If anything, its MORE acting.

Stan Helsting had Diora Baird, which is never a bad thing.

Tourney3p0: I have no problem not watching this.

Yeah. I only liked the first one because I wanted to look at Hugh Jackman for 90 minutes.

/would totally love a Castlevania movie - provided Hollywood wouldn't fark it up
//not holding my breath for either of those two things

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.

go crall in a hole and die i liked it.

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

I've walked out of a movie theater angry three times in my life. You just nailed two of those times: Van Helsing and League. The third time was Contact. Fark that movie.

extroverted_suicide: The third time was Contact. Fark that movie.

amen man. that movie couldn't have screwed up the point of the book more if it tried

Who's going to play the role of "Beard" in the movie?

Orgasmatron138: Mr.Poops: I find it funny that people complain about reboots today, but hollywood has been re-booting movies since its inception.

Not at the level that it is done now. My complaint is that that there are probably piles of scripts for good movies sitting around gathering dust while studios are throwing money at the new Transformers crapfest.


Because money that's why

No pun intended, but I recall that it sucked.

Except for Josie Maran.

In a way, this really is intended as a reboot. A reboot of the franchise that Van Helsing was intended (and failed) to be. Like the 2008 Incredible Hulk film, the new movie itself probably won't be a remake as much as a do-over. Basically Universal is taking a mulligan.

To persuade ticket buyers to give the project a second chance, the studio had to have a "big name" for the marquee, but what's interesting is they're not taking the obvious step of hiring a young up-and-comer like Channing Tatum or a quirky audience-pleaser like Johnny Depp. Instead they signed an aging, tarnished star whose box office draw has become questionable in recent years, which suggests they're hedging their bets. If the movie succeeds, maybe Cruise gets a career rejuvenation like Robert Downey, Jr received from Iron Man. But if the film bombs, at least it won't damage any A-list careers that weren't threatening to slide a few letters down the alphabet anyway. Odds are the budget will be extremely tight as well. After the expensive failures of Green Lantern and John Carter, I'd expect to see a lot more caution exercised in this runaway franchise-creation trend.

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.

You must have missed the "Tom Cruise" part.