What, you think it's still 1938? Nobody wants that shiny, ideallistic, altruistic Hero shit any more!!

You mean "Copy the most superficial aspects of each, over and over, until we strike the Magical Fountain of Never-ending Gold?" doesn't actually work?!

How many of them have to worry about getting shot when they get pulled over for driving while white working class?

"Trailer Drinking Games" has potential as a YouTube series.

So the line about it being like Charles Xavier's mansion is a quasi-spoiler, too… though technically we're talking Project K & X-23 here.

It's a hole in the wall pizza joint with a big flatscreen…

That makes the writers' argument that they couldn't use any of the 1959 elements because rights belonged to MGM as an excuse for why they could have no gay under or overtones, even more flimsy!

Only as part of a long line of "needless, mindless, CGI & 3D bloated remakes that flopped, yet studios insisted on trying again and again, expensively convinced there was a brass ring to be caught somehow"

15-minute bw short. Black & white silent vs colour talkie. Distinct entities, unless you think that there's no difference between The Lion King movie and Julie Taymor's adaptation.

That's one version. They're up to at least 3 by now, also having said that they couldn't put it in because they didn't have the rights to it and it wasn't in the novel (like doing an Oz movie without any rainbows in it, because the 1939 movie is under copyright and has a song about rainbows) and then they said that…

They seem to be really good at covering their ears when we tell them we don't WANT it, we want, say, the next Mad Max movie — see also the recent, much-hyped Ten Commandments movie, and Pan, for going to the "technically public domain so we're getting a deal on the IP even though it never works that way" well.

Company that tries to make money fails, hugely, and predictably, in predicted ways, because they don't know how to make the product any more…film lucky to be seen at matinee in a week!

They did it in the Douglas Fairbanks Robin Hood, which is also amazing, cheesy, cloying, action packed and freaking amazing. You can see where ALL our modern swashbuckling tropes got hammered out, AND it has a meta, ironic, winking-through-the-camera fourth-wall-cracking scene involving fangirls mobbing the winning…

But then there was a point to it — from a one-reeler to an actual feature film longer than 15 minutes, from a silent AND bw movie to a colour talkie. What can Timur Bekmambetov and Paramount add, at this point? Dodgy 3D on top of the dodgy CGI (and I know they keep boasting it's all real film, but that chariot flying…

There were a few articles about it a year ago, mostly people asking "Why are they still doing this? Who wants these lackluster CGI-clotted remakes of classic sword-and-sandal films? Don't they realize this is going to bomb hard, too?" and then it got lost in the shuffle of all the others.

The fortune spent on special effects does not, however, appear to have been well-spent on special effects. I watched the chariot race trailer convinced I was watching the ad for the tie-in video game…

There's an amazing restored HD version — I watched the ad on YT and
WHOAH. Now I want it back in theatres like they did with Lawrence of Arabia.

Unfortunately it seems to follow the modern swords-and-sandals trend of putting all its dudes in long-sleeved shirts and leather pants/boots, eschewing actual sandals as just too gay.

Yes — it was based on a best-selling adventure/romance/historical novel that got a lot of stuff "under the radar" by being "moral" and "educational," as was typical in those days.

Also the whole cast were willing to gnaw the scenery to splinters, which is what you have to do with an epic, to avoid looking like a school drama class trying to put on Shakespeare in false beards and shuffling embarrassment.