David Price5 said:Times have definitely shifted. TV budgets have exploded lately, and you see top-tier screenwriters moving over to television. Just look at shows like *Band of Brothers*, *Damages*, *Rome*, or *Deadwood*. Sure, not every series is a masterpiece, but then again, not every movie is either. A lot of films are just mediocre. Honestly, what do you think—does someone like Bill Paxton make more from movies or from television these days?
Regarding the paycheck, I'd bet they're pretty much neck and neck, except TV gives you that steady, reliable check... plus, he was never really an A-list superstar pulling ten mil per movie to begin with. And all those shows you listed... most of them featured actors who already had established "movie star" careers before jumping into TV, people who were actually respected by critics and audiences alike. Some folks found fame later on, sure, but when it comes to Paxton and his series work, I'd say the creators definitely walked away with more profit than he did...
@Richard Wilson4 — You hit the nail on the head there, he’s such a charismatic guy who somehow just never quite landed a truly great film. The one exception for me has to be *The Rock*, mostly because he actually held his own against Ed Harris (even if he lost that round again)... probably one of the brighter spots in his filmography...
David Price5 said:That old rule doesn't hold up anymore. Nowadays, a huge chunk of quality TV actually rivals the big Hollywood movies.
For sure, but let's be real—not everyone has the bandwidth to binge-watch every single show out there... back in the day, seeing someone in a big-budget Hollywood flick was how you measured their "status," and I guess I'm still kind of stuck in that mindset since I rarely find the motivation to commit to an entire series from start to finish. You catch a movie and you're like, okay, so this guy's still a big deal, he's still relevant, cool. It lets me keep him on the radar—sort of "on ice"—until he pops up again in something else (like Paxton) and actually delivers something solid...
David Price5 said:There are actually three women in Big Love. :-)
TV shows just seem to be winning lately—it’s like movies are slowly fading into the background (with a few exceptions, obviously)... But what happened to the big cinema stuff? Think about hits like Twister, Titanic, or U-571... then you’ve got him directing that killer horror movie "Frailty" and he basically vanishes from the spotlight, popping up only in small roles here and there—mostly back in the Alien era. I’d throw Kiefer Sutherland into the mix too, but his show "24" became such a massive global phenomenon (and "Mirrors" kind of squeezed in there as well), so he's pretty much back in the mainstream now—especially since it looks like he might be teaming up with Schumacher again, which hasn't really failed them yet... plus, who knows, maybe Bauer could turn into a full-blown movie franchise one day. I’m honestly hoping Cameron finds a spot for Paxton somewhere just to get him back onto the big screen... He’s more of a character actor than a leading man, but man, he always manages to steal the show from the A-listers...
Anthony Smith3 said:Honestly... I think Ludgren fits this thread better than Chris O'Donnell ever could. That guy was never really a household name; he showed up in Batman III and IV, drifted through Hollywood for a bit, and then vanished. He was just another pretty face from the 90s—kind of like how Brad Pitt started out, except Pitt actually put in the work to become a legend. Same goes for Alicia Silverstone.🤷
He did a decent job in that thriller/drama ''The Chamber,'' but let’s be real, Gene Hackman basically carried that entire movie on his back, so I'm with you there. It's kind of funny how both him and Alicia Silverstone ended up in the fourth Batman movie. Maybe it's just me, but where the hell did Bill Paxton go? He might not have been an A-lister, but man, as a character actor, he always knew how to elevate a scene...
Sandra Campbell2 said:Look, I’ll give you that—the remake holds up better, sure. But that ending? Once they step out of the motel and that final showdown kicks off, it’s a total catastrophe. Just a complete disaster. The technical stuff is laughable; bullets are flying everywhere like it's some amateur paintball match. Then you have Russell just picking people off ten at a time, one by one, like it’s nothing. It loses all sense of tension.
Anyway, my pick for the best in this thread is going to be-->>
Tarzan < George of the Jungle
George of the Jungle isn't actually a Tarzan remake—it’s more of a parody based on the same comic books. Honestly, Tarzan himself deserves his own massive thread at this point since there have been so many different versions made... but yeah, I'm pretty much a fan of all of them 😁
Anna Paquin—she basically hit that Oscar peak and then just... vanished into a sea of mediocre movies. I mean, she was in X-Men, sure, but it felt like her character was constantly being pushed to the sidelines—just kind of an afterthought, really—and now she’s mostly just doing TV gigs.
Helen Hunt—think about it: she crushed it in *Twister*, which was a massive blockbuster, then followed that up with *As Good as It Gets* and an Oscar... then she did that silly comedy *What Women Want*, which felt like a total vanity project just to show off Mel Gibson's comedic timing outside of *Lethal Weapon*. Now? She's pretty much nowhere to be found. She isn't even that old, and man, she really showed what she was capable of once...
I don't think it’s really fair to say Travolta blew his big comeback chance—he actually knocked out some seriously solid flicks after that "rebound" period. I mean, look at *Get Shorty* with Rene Russo, *Face/Off*, *General's Daughter*... he even did some great dramas like *Primary Colors* and *A Love Song for Bobby Long*. Plus, he’s got that action flick *Taking of Pelham 123* coming up soon, so... the guy is still around. Sure, he fluctuates a bit, but he's definitely not forgotten...
restlessfox5 said:It felt pretty dumb too—how they didn't even really show the lead from the first one in the sequel... they just gave him a quick mention and called it a day...
Probably because Devon Sawa suddenly decided he was some massive A-lister and tried to demand 20 million bucks to show up for the sequel... so the producers just laughed in his face and killed him off instead. Cost them zero dollars...
Raymond Anderson4 said:I’m talking about the beginning. Please... Like I said, this whole sequel feels like it was designed just to look flashy and spectacular. To me, it’s just nonsense. The first one is easily the best—they really should have looked back at that for inspiration. For instance, that death in the first movie where the woman gets strangled by the shower curtain cord because of a crazy chain reaction? That’s what a real FD death looks like to me...
Actually, that guy dies exactly like that 😉 But yeah, the first one is unbeatable in that department. That kitchen scene... I definitely found myself being extra careful while making coffee over the last few days.
Raymond Anderson4 said:Look, I’m a huge fan of the franchise, but honestly, only when we're talking about those first two movies. I just caught this trailer... that death where some guy is out there mowing the lawn, a rock flies up from the mower and hits a woman right in the back of the head? Total garbage.🙄.
I feel like the whole gimmick with this series is making the deaths look flashy and over-the-top rather than actually scary or tense...
And if you ask me, the second one was the weakest link—mostly because they brought back the "sole survivor" from the original to bridge the gap. "Blair Witch" kind of brought back that high standard. As for "Final Destination 4"... it feels like it might turn into some teen-drama mush since I haven't seen a single character worth rooting for yet. If they're going to do it, they better at least lean into the spectacle. That lawnmower bit... I mean, sure, it's "cool," but realistically, how many times is that actually gonna happen while road crews are working? Not likely...
Then you’ve got Halloween shoved in there too—and honestly, that remake is pretty terrible. If you check IMDb, there’s some talk about Carpenter potentially being involved in something that could be a new version of They Live... though, I guess it's mostly just because he's the guy who created the original story and characters. So, it looks like another potential remake might just get added to the pile of his films...
quietdriver3 said:Three decent comedies. One good thriller, and two pretty fair dramas. If that isn't reaching the top tier, then I don't know what is... 😉
Guess I need to dig a little deeper into his filmography then... I've mostly just been sticking to the big hits. Thanks 🙂
Lisa Ross65 said:Here’s another top-tier director who lost his way—currently on a serious downward spiral: Rob Reiner.
When was he ever actually at the top, though? I mean, maybe one decent comedy here, one solid thriller there... and okay, sure, that alright drama *Stand By Me*. That's about it...
It wasn't really anything special for me, honestly. The book was pretty much the same deal—kind of a letdown compared to his other stuff in that L.A. Quartet series. The only thing that actually caught my interest was how he took a real case (which he does in most of his books) and I ended up digging up some actual photos of the real Dahlia... both alive and dead... just gruesome. Also, I've never really been able to get into Josh Hartnett playing a "hard-boiled" detective.
but seriously, I read that they're filming two Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde remakes soon—and 50 Cent is starring in one of them! That is absolutely terrifying... stuff like that is exactly what gets under my skin.
😁
I saw that bit about 50 Cent too, but they won't call it a remake... they'll probably label it a "modernization" of an old classic. Sometimes those actually turn out okay, but most of the time? Just pathetic. It's all a way to pretend they aren't just recycling a hundred-year-old story because they ran out of original ideas. It was the exact same thing with >—they called it a "modernization" and a fresh concept, even though it's just based on the same old > premise.
I'm with you on this one. The '78 version is easily the best by far, while the one from '99 is pretty weak, even if Abel Ferrara was at the helm. Donald Sutherland is a legend, obviously, and that ending... man, absolute gold. But that last one from 2007? Not great. They felt forced to give it some "American" happy ending, and it just didn't sit right with me at all...
Keith Kelly3 said:Wait, so you aren't exactly a fan of the acting in the original then? 😲 Yeah, it's a remake, but I heard a rumor it might be animated.
Well, not exactly... It feels a bit too plastic, but I guess that’s just the way it goes with most older films—it isn't necessarily a dealbreaker, but there's definitely room for improvement. Then again, if they go the animated route, I suppose none of that even matters...
Keith Kelly3 said:I wouldn't say the new " fog" was a total disaster, but it definitely lost that specific vibe from the original. Honestly, look at John Boorman's take on the Wizard of Oz—and he's actually a solid director—but how could that ever work? It just can't turn out right because they ditch the core elements of the original, and I have no clue what they're even trying to bring to the table differently...
For me, that whole feeling just died the second they messed with the role of that blonde woman—you know, the one who ends up being a ghost (whatever)—but everything else stays pretty close to the original. I haven't actually heard anything about that Wizard of Oz remake before. Maybe it offers some slightly better acting, but I'm not holding my breath thinking it'll ever touch the level of the original...
Most remakes either lean too hard into flashy special effects or try way too hard to tell a "good story"—though if you've got a solid crew behind you, a decent plot usually follows—but honestly, most of the time it just turns out terrible. Personally, I actually dug the remake of >—well, except for that one awkward bit where the lead actor is frantically searching for his soulmate... but since they fixed up the visual effects and actually gave us some meaningful context regarding what happened with that ghost ship, it worked for me. To me, a movie just falls apart if it doesn't bring something new to the table, and even when they *do* try to change things up, it can end up being a total disaster, kind of like >... so, yeah, I’m all for remaking a classic, provided it actually finds its own voice and doesn't just mimic the original.
Lisa Ross65 said:Scorsese took on that remake because Universal Pictures would fund Christ's Last Temptation, and in exchange, he had to direct a commercial flick. Otherwise, the movie is fine. I'm against the announced remakes of Carpenter's The Thing or Hill's Warriors.
I'm with you on the Carpenter stuff—gave me the chills just reading about it, since they already managed to turn Night of the Witch into a total disaster... ''attack'' is slightly more specific and ''fog'' is somewhere in there, but nothing lives up to the originals. See, I haven't heard anything about them remaking Hill... so I won't say anything, since even the original is just okay for me...