Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Movie Mash-Up


Recommended Posts

I guess that was easier than I thought it would be.

 

Very well known director [John Carpenter]. But his films don't exactly attract Oscar nominations. Except for this one: the lead [Jeff Bridges] was nominated for Best Actor.

The director made this movie because he thought it would be received better than his last movie [The Thing], which flopped at the box office. Today both are considered classics, though the previous movie [The Thing] is perhaps a little better known. A little. [The prior movie had a sequel of sorts [it was actually a prequel in 2011 with the same title because why not]. This movie had a sequel tv series, though it did not do well [Starman on tv starred Robert Hays as the alien and Christopher Daniel Barnes, later to be known as the movies' Greg Brady, as his son.].

To the best of my knowledge, the only Best Actor nominee [Jeff Bridges] for a role that was not human. 

In his natural form, the main character is basically energy, a ball of light.

The script was proposed to the same studio that made another movie about a non-human [E.T.]. The studio chose the other movie, which was VERY well received by critics and was a monster hit (monster is not a clue, but I suppose it could be, but no, not really). 

So anyway...

The main [title] character's origin is never revealed. Generally, yea [He's a Starman]. Specifically, no.

 

And George is up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This first clue might give it away, as I've mentioned this person before.  A featured actor in this movie was a student at MIT when I was there.  I met him a couple of times, as he was on the wrestling team along with one of my fraternity brothers.  He died far too young.

Two of the actors became state governors.

The movie was based on a novella by Richard Bachman.  "Richard Bachman" is actually a pseudonym for Stephen King.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

This first clue might give it away, as I've mentioned this person before.  A featured actor in this movie was a student at MIT when I was there.  I met him a couple of times, as he was on the wrestling team along with one of my fraternity brothers.  He died far too young.

Two of the actors became state governors.

The movie was based on a novella by Richard Bachman.  "Richard Bachman" is actually a pseudonym for Stephen King.

George

I once read some Bachman stuff- "The Long Walk" and "Why I Was Bachman."   On the one hand,  Bachman's stuff began selling really well entirely on its own merits. On the other hand, when Steven King's name was later attached to his Bachman books, the sales multiplied.    Obvious differences included more exposure, and readers having confidence in a particular writer's work over unknown quantities.  (I have a dozen or so authors I really like, so I get that.)

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse "the Body" Ventura, IIRC, both became governors  (Ben Richards and Captain Freedom.)

Erland van Lidth was in Stir Crazy as well as "THE RUNNING MAN."    As "Dynamo", he sang his own arias while driving his Stalker vehicle.   Big dude, went to MIT, wrestled and sang opera.   Had a short acting career due to dying young. 

So, the movie is "THE RUNNING MAN."    Ended on a much happier note than the book of the same name.  Although the book didn't have Dweezil Zappa saying "Don't touch that dial."

 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next movie.

 

There once was a plan to spoof this movie, but that plan fell through, and the later movie didn't spoof it at all- just its location.   This movie included an ensemble that got rather emotional filming some scenes since they cut a bit close to their own personal experiences- and memories.    Some time after this movie was released, someone sent a spec-script around with the original movie's plot, and its name from when they were writing it pre-release.   A number of people recognized the movie, and others claimed it was "not good enough" to be a successful movie.   A few added there was too much dialogue and not enough sex.  

One actress intended to remake this movie.  All the major studios refused to consider it. "That film is deemed untouchable."  So, those plans were scrapped (for which I am grateful.)     The set for the eating establishment was made for this movie, but just about everything else were pre-made sets already built by the studio.      The musician in the movie was actually a drummer, despite what he pretended to play for the movie. (ACTING!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

"Diner"?

George

No. Just because a movie has a notable eating establishment in it doesn't mean the title will reference it.   BTW, the one in this movie is not any form of diner or coffee shop- it's made for a more upscale clientele.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Raf said:

Sounds like Casablanca, though I cannot name the spoof.

The film IS "CASABLANCA."   The Marx Brothers' movie "A Night in Casablanca" was a comedy about the city- but an early draft of the script showed a direct spoof of "Casablanca" the movie.     In fact, Warner Brothers sent a letter to the Marx Brothers asking about it.  Groucho replied, and the result was funny and, at the time, went viral.  Groucho was thrilled they gave him the opening to make headlines about their film so easily.   (Snopes has a page on the subject.)   No, he didn't actually answer them- he was evasive and claimed they were suggesting they had copyright over all films about the city. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2020 at 1:06 AM, WordWolf said:

Next movie.

 

There once was a plan to spoof this movie, but that plan fell through, and the later movie didn't spoof it at all- just its location.   This movie included an ensemble that got rather emotional filming some scenes since they cut a bit close to their own personal experiences- and memories.    Some time after this movie was released, someone sent a spec-script around with the original movie's plot, and its name from when they were writing it pre-release.   A number of people recognized the movie, and others claimed it was "not good enough" to be a successful movie.   A few added there was too much dialogue and not enough sex.  

One actress intended to remake this movie.  All the major studios refused to consider it. "That film is deemed untouchable."  So, those plans were scrapped (for which I am grateful.)     The set for the eating establishment was made for this movie, but just about everything else were pre-made sets already built by the studio.      The musician in the movie was actually a drummer, despite what he pretended to play for the movie. (ACTING!) 

The ensemble included German Jews who fled Germany, and got emotional during some German scenes.       I'm immensely thankful Madonna's attempt to remake this movie fizzled.  The one new set was "Rick's Cafe Americain."       Can you imagine the "play it again, Sam" scene with "Sam" singing while playing drums instead of the piano?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take either the original or the remake, though they are not similar to each other except the most basic plot elements.

The original was in black and white. The lead character was a writer framed for murder by his publisher.

The remake maintains the murder and the overall subordinate/supervisor framework (pun intended) of the plot.

In both movies, the actual killer does not know the identity of the person he is framing and, in fact, enlists that person to help with the cover-up.

The remake adds a twist ending in keeping with the new characters and setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused by these two lines:

21 hours ago, Raf said:

The original was in black and white. The lead character was a writer framed for murder by his publisher.

In both movies, the actual killer does not know the identity of the person he is framing and, in fact, enlists that person to help with the cover-up.

Maybe the publisher wasn't the killer, but then why frame the writer?  If the publisher is the murderer, why does he not know the writer he's framing?

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He knows his writer. He doesn't know that's the person he's trying to frame.

 

Explaining how this is possible gives away too much of the plot.

Both movies involve a person in a position of power enlisting a subordinate to find "the real killer" (a person who is, in fact, being framed for murder), not realizing the subordinate IS the person they are trying to frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase something. 

The remake wasn't so much a remake as it was an updated adaptation of the novel that used the same source material as the original. You know how West Side Story was basically Romeo and Juliet? Yeah, same thing.

So in this case:

The original has the same name as the source material (a novel. Not trying to hide that).

The "remake" has a different name and recycles the same general plot while changing the setting, characters and most other elements of the story... but the basic outline of the plot is the same:  a powerful person kills someone and seeks to frame an innocent person, then employs the aid of an underling without realizing that underling is the person he's trying to frame.

The lead actor and the actual killer in the remake were considered for the movie version of "The Fugitive" before Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones were cast. Personally, I could see it, but Tommy Lee Jones, man.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this needs to be clarified: The publisher in the original movie is the killer. I did not mean to leave any room for the possibility that he wasn't.

In the remake, the publisher is ... closely associated with the military

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The remake is a more political thriller type. A man has a brief liaison with a woman who is the mistress of a very powerful Washington DC figure. Mr. Powerful kills the woman and wants to pin the murder and the other man, not knowing that man's identity. Using his position of influence, he puts the man, his underling, in charge of the search for the scapegoat. Basically, a killer hires a fall guy to find the fall guy, not knowing they are one and the same.

In the original, the bigshot Washington DC type is a newspaper publisher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The remake was the first major starring vehicle for the lead actor, BUT it was released after his second major starring vehicle, which leads people to [reasonably] think of this as his second major role. He plays a naval officer framed by the Secretary of Defense, who murdered his mistress. The Secretary puts the naval officer in charge of finding another man seen leaving his mistress' apartment the night of the murder, not realizing the naval officer WAS that other man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, GeorgeStGeorge said:

No Way Out?

Costner appeared in a number of films before this, but only The Untouchables would be considered a starring vehicle.

George

I can confirm that George is right.  Definitely "No Way Out".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...