Clash of the Titans (2010)

[wickednick]

Their seems that a radically different version of the film had been shot, with more gods in it and a Perseus and Andromeda love affair (you know like the original).
http://scifiwire.com/2010/04/the-version-of-clash-of-t.php

[BoyScoutKevin]

I was going to see it on Sunday, but I wasn't feeling well that day, and the thought of all the movie I'd save if I didn't see it, and I didn't go. But, there was another reason I didn't go. I saw the trailer for "Clash of the Titans" (2010.)

Ray Harryhausen's films, I've found, are of various qualities, but one thing I could always count on in one of his films, was having fun watching it. On the other hand, with this remake, while I did think the SFX were better, the filmmakers seemed to have sucked all the "fun" out of the remake, and what is the fun in that.

Still, I might yet go see it, as it is the only film still playing in my area that looks vaguely interesting, that I haven't seen.

[Flick James]

Yeah, we're back to my earlier thread. It sounds like you already know the movie is going to suck. So, the question is, why are you going to go see it? You'd probably get more entertainment staying at home watching South Park reruns.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Yeah, we're back to my earlier thread. It sounds like you already know the movie is going to suck. So, the question is, why are you going to go see it? You'd probably get more entertainment staying at home watching South Park reruns.

Which goes back to my thread, it may not be any good, but it still seems to be the best thing playing in the theaters. And as for watching "South Park" reruns, I can't. I'm one of the few who have neither TV nor dvd player, and I have no interest in inquiring neither.

[Flick James]

Well, then, you may engage in any number of other activities that would beat paying money to see another hack remake, including, but not limited to, playing with your pet, going for a hike, going to the bar, visiting a friend with a tv and dvd player, shooting someone in the a**hole with a dartgun, or watching one of thousands upon thousands of great "good" and "bad" movies on the computer that you appear to have, all of which would be preferable to me than paying money to see a movie I already know is going to be a piece of crap.

I mean, I know this is a "bad" movie forum, but to me I see a difference between Clash of the Titans and a b-movie that I would actually be entertained by, but I understand it's all subjective.

I'm not trying to be a d***head, Kevin, really I'm not. I you really want to see Clash of the Titans, then you should go see it. If it was something you felt you would enjoy then that would make sense. But you seem to be confident that you won't like it. I just don't get the point of buying tickets for a movie that you pretty much already know you're going to be disappointed in. Again, I asked in my earlier thread why people do this, and so far nobody has provided an explanation.

[metalmonster]

I Went To See It A Couple Of Days Ago .......The Movie Was Watchable But It Has Nothing On The Original



Hollywood Needs To Start Coming Up With Original Ideas Instead Of Reusing Old Ones And Ruining Them With Their So Called "UPDATING FOR A NEW GENERATION"

[Rev. Powell]

I Went To See It A Couple Of Days Ago .......The Movie Was Watchable But It Has Nothing On The Original



Hollywood Needs To Start Coming Up With Original Ideas Instead Of Reusing Old Ones And Ruining Them With Their So Called "UPDATING FOR A NEW GENERATION"

As some of us have been pointing out, why would Hollywood spend the energy to come up with something original when hordes of people keep going to see updates like CLASH OF THE TITANS despite bad reviews and bad word of mouth? 

People need to stop blaming Hollywood.  The audience is the one demanding this crap, Hollywood is just feeding them the pap they crave. 

[Ed, Ego and Superego]

I have to sort of disagree, I think Hollywood is trying to ride the nostalgia train and people want to try and relive the magical stuff they loved as kids.  No one sits around and says..."Hey I wish they would do a CGI remake of X film from the 70's or 80's" then spams the studios demanding i.t

But people will pay for a known brand, and the copyriight on a lot of this old stuff is probably running out.  That makes "reimaginings" easier than thinking of new stuff. 

But this is just talking

[Flick James]

I Went To See It A Couple Of Days Ago .......The Movie Was Watchable But It Has Nothing On The Original



Hollywood Needs To Start Coming Up With Original Ideas Instead Of Reusing Old Ones And Ruining Them With Their So Called "UPDATING FOR A NEW GENERATION"

As some of us have been pointing out, why would Hollywood spend the energy to come up with something original when hordes of people keep going to see updates like CLASH OF THE TITANS despite bad reviews and bad word of mouth? 

People need to stop blaming Hollywood.  The audience is the one demanding this crap, Hollywood is just feeding them the pap they crave. 

Thank you. I've been saying that several times in this thread. The hamsters keep hitting the feeder bar. Stop b***hing, put your democratic entertainment dollar where your mouth is, and stop going to them.

[Rev. Powell]

I have to sort of disagree, I think Hollywood is trying to ride the nostalgia train and people want to try and relive the magical stuff they loved as kids.  No one sits around and says..."Hey I wish they would do a CGI remake of X film from the 70's or 80's" then spams the studios demanding i.t

But people will pay for a known brand, and the copyriight on a lot of this old stuff is probably running out.  That makes "reimaginings" easier than thinking of new stuff. 

But this is just talking

That's not disagreeing.  People don't "spam" studios for this stuff, but they do vote for "known brands" over original concepts with their movie-going dollars.   

[Psycho Circus]

Just think of all the great movies you could buy with the price of a cinema ticket these days!

[Raffine]

Just think of all the great movies you could buy with the price of a cinema ticket these days!

For the price of one ticket you can get yourself a Mill Creek 50 Movie pack and be entertained for days and days and days!

CLASH OF THE TITANS (2010)
Run Time: 106 minutes 



Run Time: 62 Hours 23 Minutes 

[Criswell]

I thought it was an ok Popcorn flick. But nothing good of course.

[Silverlady]

Well, I caved and went to see it.  It was ok.  Good popcorn movie. I didn't like the Kraken, but I liked Medusa. She had a pretty face ... snakes and all.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Well, he finally saw it. And he says this with some . . . ? Because I know everytime I see a remake, a sequel, I encourage Hollywood to make another remake, another sequel, instead of doing something more original.

Okay. Why did I see it?
Two reasons.
(1) I thought it had an "interesting" story. And with most of the "interesting" actors, directors being either deceased or retired. Story is one of the few things to get me into the theater. And I don't find that many "interesting" stories anymore.

(2) People insisted that I not see it. At some point, such insistence gets my back up. I don't like it. I don't like being told what to do or not to do; therefore, I do the opposite.
If the people insisting that I not see it had been less insistent, I might have let things slide and not seen it, but . . .

What did I think of it?
It reminded me of an earlier film I saw "Sherlock Holmes.

Were either film as bad as I thought they be? No.
Did either film surpass the previous versions? No.

I did think both films had their moments. I especially liked the hired help in this film. If you are ever in trouble, they're the ones you want behind you watching your back. I thought they were that good. And I don't say that about alot of characters. Actually, I'd rather have them behind me than the A-Team. But . . .

I found both films to be at best mediocre. But . . ;

As further proof I never learn my lesson, or, at best, am a slow learner. I'm going to watch an upcoming film I think is going to be a bigger suckfest than these two films. "Robin Hood."

And why do I think it'll suck so mightily?
Again,  two reasons.

(1) "Gladiator" anyone.

(2) Russell Crowe, at his best, will only turn in the sixth best performance in the role. Behind Richard Todd, Richard Greene, Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, and Douglas Fairbanks, sr. All of whom I've seen in the role.

And this will be my last post on this thread.