> > I've always had fond memories of the show. While most of what I watched at
> > that age is forgotten or reinforced by later memories, Land of the Lost stands
> > out as something special. But I never saw it again after age six.
>
> See, if you had seen it again, you would remember it as one of the worst shows ever put on television. It is unspeakably awful.

Oh, I totally get that. Sorry if I was unclear. Sure, it's wretched. But that was kind of my point. The ONE good thing about the show -- that it was somehow evocative for kids and as such created hilarious memories for people like me who think back on how indescribably cheesy it was while still scaring me -- is impossible to recapture in a modern film.

It's not like most remakes, which, while they seldom do, have a CHANCE to recapture the appeal of the source material and could therefore appeal to its fans. Land of the Lost has zero chance to do that, which means its audience is going to be people who don't care about the original show, in which case why not just make up a new story about a funny guy travelling back in time and running into dinosaurs?

It's just a really strange, off-putting branding choice, and the kicker is that it surely cost the studio more money than an original screenplay would have.

> > Tony Scott is the director, so expect it to be unnecessarily hyper and
> > frenetic.
>
> What helps make the original so awesome is its lowkey '70s vibe. It is uneven and gritty and simple. Tony Scott + Travolta <> simple and gritty.

True, but there's no point to a remake if you're not going to try a different take on the material. I know that seemingly contradicts what I just said about Land of the Lost, but the difference is in what the source material offers for potential.

That's a good point about the original story's time being key to why it works, though. Now I'm curious if the remake will be realistic about how that sort of situation would be handled in 2009, or if Tony Scott will just try cutting fast enough that we don't think about it.

> Unlike you -- and everyone else on the planet -- I dug the Miami Vice movie.

It's got a 6.0 on the IMDb, which I sort of think of as the midpoint between good and bad. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 48% (although it's 68% with top critics). I agree that few hated it as much as I did, but I don't know that you have much of a case beyond that.

You're right that it's "essence of Mann" in terms of mood but "disconnected from the characters." You might have stumbled into why I liked The Village. It's "essence of Shyamalan, all mood and atmosphere . . . disconnected from the characters, and it's slow and plodding at times, but I still enjoyed it."

So maybe it's just a question of personal taste about what you like for style. I love Mann's style, but apparently not enough that it stands on its own. What I love primarily about Heat, Thief, The Insider, and even Collateral is that the struggles of the characters are palpable, and the style is used to enhance that, rather than standing on its own as the whole point of the exercise.

> I don't really get this. Does Kill Bill (especially Volume Two) not transcend the chop sockey flicks he's riffing on?

Yes, it does. But I'm not sure it transcends Tarantino's fetishes, except in certain key scenes. I don't mean that as a criticism. I love Kill Bill, almost without reservation. My point is only that, followed up as it was with Death Proof (which, again, I also liked a lot) and now this, I'm disappointed that this is the direction Tarantino is moving in.

Maybe it boils down to this: he can do two kinds of movies really really well. (By his own explanation, there's the universe of his movies, and the universe of the movies his *characters* watch.) I love both kinds, but ultimately one kind has more value and longevity than the other.

But you're right. The trailer probably isn't THAT reflective of the movie, so maybe I'm assuming too much about what it is.