Plan B Forum

Don't see the necessity of a re-make; may watch anyway, depending on what else I have to get done.

I won't watch it. Remakes almost never live up to the original. Plus they will probably over do the audience participation and it will come off as "forced".

Don't see the necessity of a re-make

I couldn't agree more...

Plus they've cast a woman to play Frankie?

That doesn't work for me...

Umm Jim let's just say she fits the description of Frank far better than Tim Curry.

Don't see the necessity of a re-make

It is called making money. A production company has workers under contract. Fox has time to fill. Lacking is adequate creative imagination. So do a remake. For a wider application of the principle, see "The Producers" by Mel Brooks.

snailgate

Crackpot wrote:Umm Jim let's just say she fits the description of Frank far better than Tim Curry.

How is a woman supposed to be a "Sweet Transvestite"

Don't see the necessity of a re-make

It is called making money.

Lord Jim wrote:

Crackpot wrote:Umm Jim let's just say she fits the description of Frank far better than Tim Curry.

How is a woman supposed to be a "Sweet Transvestite"

Has it occurred to you that your assumptions might be wrong?

I'm interested in seeing Jims reaction when he figures it out

Ooooh...

OK...

I wasn't familiar with Laverne Cox...

I only checked the first part of her IMDB bio:

Laverne Cox was born on May 29, 1972 in Mobile, Alabama, USA. She is an actress and producer, known for Orange Is the New Black (2013), Grandma (2015) and Carl[a] (2011). See full bio »

Looks like I really should have followed the link for "see full bio"...

Well it made my day.

Sue U wrote:Don't see the necessity of a re-make

I have enjoyed seeing new stage productions of it (even amateur ones, some of which have been pretty good). So I don't see why I would turn my nose up at a new screen production.

A friendof mine went to a theater version of it a couple of weeks ago (Bellport Theater IIRC) and it was "no outside props allowed". If you wanted to paticipate, you had to buy the "kit" from the theater.

Scooter wrote:

Sue U wrote:Don't see the necessity of a re-make

I have enjoyed seeing new stage productions of it (even amateur ones, some of which have been pretty good). So I don't see why I would turn my nose up at a new screen production.

To me, there's some kind of difference between a live performance and a movie, although admittedly I haven't thought about why. Maybe it's because of the "permanence" of the film version as opposed to the evanescence of a theater performance. I have no problem seeing many different takes on plays and operas and such, and actually enjoy seeing the differences as much as anything else. I guess in this case it's because the Rocky Horror Picture Show has become so iconic in itself, far more widely and frequently seen than the stage play and now something of a cultural touchstone. But I think you're right, Scooter; I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it out of hand. So now I'm going to have to see how it fits on the small screen.

I first saw it 1978 in San Luis Obispo at a theater on the Cal Poly campus, audience participation was already a pretty big thing, IIRC. I seem to remember dancing the Time Warp at a number of parties which may or may not have been fueled by certain not-strictly-legal consiousness-altering substances.

I'll check it out tomorrow.

First time I saw it was in New Paltz (top ten party college) in 1977. I was visiting a "sometimes" girlfriend who attended New Paltz and I had made the long trip from SUNY Buffalo where I was attending enrolled at college.
Legal and illegal mind altering substances were had by all both of us.


ETA
midnight showing of course.

This, as modified:

Sue U wrote:

Scooter wrote:

Sue U wrote:Don't see the necessity of a re-make

I have enjoyed seeing new stage productions of it (even amateur ones, some of which have been pretty good). So I don't see why I would turn my nose up at a new screen production.

To me, there's some kind of difference between a live performance and a movie, although admittedly I haven't thought about why. Maybe it's because of the "permanence" of the film version as opposed to the evanescence of a theater performance. I have no problem seeing many different takes on plays and operas and such, and actually enjoy seeing the differences as much as anything else. I guess in this case it's because the Rocky Horror Picture Show has become so iconic in itself, far more widely and frequently seen than the stage play and now something of a cultural touchstone. But I think you're right, Scooter; I shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it out of hand. So now I'm going to have to see how it fits on the small screen. Plus nothing ever good happens on FOX.

Well, they did a pretty bad job with Grease (I really didn't need to see the actors driving around in golf carts), and an even worse job with the travesty around easter (the Passion), so I wouldn't hold my breath for this being good.

FWIW, I saw the Rocky Horror Show in the 70s (off Broadway I think) before I ever heard of the movie (Tim Curry was in it, however) and about 15 or so years ago on Broadway (with Dick Cavett as the Criminologist). There is something different and more immediate about live theater, but I don't think this is live. But the music will be fun.

Who will be Eddie?

Adam Lambert

Well the first one was boring so I suppose this might outdo it.