PDA

View Full Version : Death Race 2000, new movie remake sans 2000



shrox
07-28-2008, 08:13 PM
I just saw a fun trailer on TV for Death Race, a remake of the 70's Death Race 2000. I guess we will see if Jason Stathan is on par with David Carradine.

Dexter2999
07-28-2008, 08:39 PM
Honestly, if you look past the flash of the trailer. It doesn't bode well.

I haven't seen DEATHRACE2000 since I was kid, so I don't remember it much at all. The premis of this movie looks like it has more in common with RUNNING MAN. They just made it a car movie to feed into Stathams TRANSPORTER success.

I think they lost me when they introduce Statham as a NASCAR driver? WTF? He's a Brit, try a world class formula racer or ralley racer, because that I would have bought into but NASCAR? Not so much.

Then the part about the navigators come from the womens prison and they all look like models? Yeah.

I'm all about suspension of disbelief but this movie has little red lights all around it warning me off and my instincts from trailers is batting 90%. It just seems like they slapped together a bunch of stuff to pull in the kids. Honestly, from watching the trailer I feel like I have practicaly already seen the movie. All that is missing is the end.

shrox
07-28-2008, 09:03 PM
The original had the drivers as wild characters, each with a different theme and costume. This one is kind of Road Warriorish, but I feel some Waterworld in there to for some reason.

meatycheesyboy
07-28-2008, 09:23 PM
I think they should have kept the original albeit modified title and called it Death Race: 9 years ago. Then could have featured modified killer Toyota Tercels and Ford Escorts.

ok, maybe not...

Seriously though, I think the movie will probably be mindless fun. Not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination but possibly something that you'd buy for $5 on DVD just to have some noise in the bacground as you model.

sean hargreaves
07-28-2008, 10:07 PM
Ha haaaaaaa....brilliant...absolutely brilliant!!! :ohmy:

JohnMarchant
07-29-2008, 01:18 AM
Honestly, if you look past the flash of the trailer. It doesn't bode well.

I haven't seen DEATHRACE2000 since I was kid, so I don't remember it much at all. The premis of this movie looks like it has more in common with RUNNING MAN. They just made it a car movie to feed into Stathams TRANSPORTER success.

I think they lost me when they introduce Statham as a NASCAR driver? WTF? He's a Brit, try a world class formula racer or ralley racer, because that I would have bought into but NASCAR? Not so much.

Then the part about the navigators come from the womens prison and they all look like models? Yeah.

I'm all about suspension of disbelief but this movie has little red lights all around it warning me off and my instincts from trailers is batting 90%. It just seems like they slapped together a bunch of stuff to pull in the kids. Honestly, from watching the trailer I feel like I have practicaly already seen the movie. All that is missing is the end.

What about Nigel Mansell then, he was a Brit Won Formula 1 and Nascar :):)

JohnMarchant
07-29-2008, 01:20 AM
Will probably be mindless fun, tapping into Transporter, personally i wish he would spend less time doing mindless Yank crap :):)

Qexit
07-29-2008, 07:40 AM
I think they should have kept the original albeit modified title and called it Death Race: 9 years ago. Then could have featured modified killer Toyota Tercels and Ford Escorts.Well, according to its IMDB entry it does/did have the working title of Death Race 3000 :D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0452608/


Seriously though, I think the movie will probably be mindless fun. Not a good movie by any stretch of the imagination but possibly something that you'd buy for $5 on DVD just to have some noise in the bacground as you model.Unlike the original, which definitely done tongue in cheek, it looks like they are trying to make this one as a more serious affair full of gratuitous violence and lots of weak juvenile foul language.

I saw the original a couple of years back and it was pure low budget hockum. With Sylvester Stallone as one of the other drivers. Also, the objective was very controversial, which is the main reason it got any notoriety to start with, the teams got points for running down pedestrian. I think a lot of UK motorists stick declare potential points when they are out driving, even though they have no idea where the system came from, e.g. 30 points for an accountant but only five if he's talking on his mobile as that makes it too easy :D

I definitely wont be bothering to see this one in the cinema.

Nangleator
07-29-2008, 08:49 AM
Absolutely the best thing about the calendar clicking over into the 21st century is that nothing new is named "____ 2000" any more. Whereas, between 1950 and 1999, nearly every type of product had a 2000 tacked on. There were personal hygiene products with 2000 in the name. No suppositories that I recall, but still.

And Jason Stratham as a NASCAR driver because stoopid Hollywood producers think stoopid movie-goers can't imagine a race where the cars turn right, too. (A World Rally driver strikes me as being a tough son-of-a-gun.)

And isn't it lovely to think about all the available amazing scripts, written by unknown but talented writers, and they decide to remake an old crap-fest that wasn't loved then, and isn't loved now?

JohnMarchant
07-29-2008, 09:47 AM
Absolutely the best thing about the calendar clicking over into the 21st century is that nothing new is named "____ 2000" any more. Whereas, between 1950 and 1999, nearly every type of product had a 2000 tacked on. There were personal hygiene products with 2000 in the name. No suppositories that I recall, but still.

And Jason Stratham as a NASCAR driver because stoopid Hollywood producers think stoopid movie-goers can't imagine a race where the cars turn right, too. (A World Rally driver strikes me as being a tough son-of-a-gun.)

And isn't it lovely to think about all the available amazing scripts, written by unknown but talented writers, and they decide to remake an old crap-fest that wasn't loved then, and isn't loved now?

To true mate

Like i said there seems to be a genuine lack of talent in hollywood as far as script writing go, or at the very least the lack of one decent original idea.

Well at least a rally car driver will not bore us to death going around and around and around an oval track ;(;(;(

cagey5
07-29-2008, 10:02 AM
Absolutely the best thing about the calendar clicking over into the 21st century is that nothing new is named "____ 2000" any more. Whereas, between 1950 and 1999, nearly every type of product had a 2000 tacked on. There were personal hygiene products with 2000 in the name. No suppositories that I recall, but still.




Suppositories? You know what you can do with them...

Stooch
07-29-2008, 10:17 AM
i like how they said "40mm chain cannon" while pointing out a 7.62mm gattling gun. thats a reason not to see the movie right there.

Nangleator
07-29-2008, 10:22 AM
cagey5, I am so happy at your sig. I don't know what's up with 3D people that they don't get those words.

I've given up on their-there-they're, and I even ignored it when a guy used "to" for "to", "two" and "too" in the same post. But looses? Where the hell did that come from?!

adamredwoods
07-29-2008, 10:53 AM
I saw Death Race 2000 recently on IFC cable. Campyness!

I hope they bring Stallone back.

meatycheesyboy
07-29-2008, 11:07 AM
Actually after I posted the whole Death Race 9 years ago thing (it does come out spring of '09 right? Not fall of this year does it? Otherwise I should start saying 8 years ago I guess)

Anyhow, after I posted that I started thinking, what if they had it take place in the present (an alternate present of course), that way could actually make it a sequel and acknowledge the first movie's existence instead of rebooting the whole thing. It probably wouldn't make the movie any better but it might make it a little more fun for fans of the original.

cagey5
07-29-2008, 11:14 AM
cagey5, I am so happy at your sig. I don't know what's up with 3D people that they don't get those words.

I've given up on their-there-they're, and I even ignored it when a guy used "to" for "to", "two" and "too" in the same post. But looses? Where the hell did that come from?!

lol.. Thanks for that. Actually they're, there, their was the subject of my last sig. And to, too, two will probably be my next. Unless I get side tracked by 'should of'... grrr

Puguglybonehead
07-29-2008, 08:28 PM
I remember the original being, pretty much, a B movie. It went straight to the 99-cent repertory cinemas in its first run. Honestly, I don't see the point in trying to remake a B movie. What is with Hollywood and this endless string of remakes? It's not like there aren't a lot of untried script ideas out there. I'm so sick of all the crap coming from there. I think it's time to just shut the whole place down. There are plenty of great movies being made elsewhere!

meatycheesyboy
07-29-2008, 09:23 PM
lol.. Thanks for that. Actually they're, there, their was the subject of my last sig. And to, too, two will probably be my next. Unless I get side tracked by 'should of'... grrr

I admittedly have trouble with its and it's but my current english language obsession has been with 'try to' versus 'try and'. People use them interchangeably but they mean very different things. If you say 'try and' then the outcome is already certain, you are going to try to do something AND you're going to do it whereas when you say 'try to' the outcome is not certain, you are merely going to attempt it.

Minor, maybe... Nit picking, probably... Irritating to me, absolutely.

safetyman
07-31-2008, 06:38 AM
Hollywood is out of original ideas, as was said, and their budgets are so tight that they can't afford to take a chance on a new idea. That's why you see so many superhero movies (which will eventually get old) and sequels. It's a shame really. That being said, I think the latest crop of A-List movies have been good.

Red_Oddity
07-31-2008, 09:57 AM
i like how they said "40mm chain cannon" while pointing out a 7.62mm gattling gun. thats a reason not to see the movie right there.

Maybe they meant 7.62x40mm.

Still, this is Paul W.S. Anderson we're talking about, come on, what where we expecting, the only really good thing this guy has done is Event Horizon.