The Pitters' Place

... Why?

Maybe they'll get it right this time? They should make it rated R though, for graphic violence, and have the animals actually kill people. Especially the main characters. They should all be horribly maimed to death until they die... to death.

But I like Jumanji.

I agree though, more death is always good.

I'm going with your original comment - there is absolutely no reason to change a frame of that movie

what the fucking shit is this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QKg5SZ_35I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm ok with this. In that, it's clearly not a "remake". It's an entirely new movie that happens to be very loosely based on the same source material that the 1995 film Jumanji was also very loosely based on. Now, the fact that it's just a bunch of adults playing kids trapped in adult bodies means that it will probably be painfully unfunny while thinking that it's funny. But I have no problem with the "remake" aspect.

How the fuck is this shit okay while Ghostbusters 2016 was the worst thing to ever happen to cinema??

Well I wasn't one of the people saying that about Ghostbusters, but there are a couple notable differences I can see anyway:

1) Ghostbusters wasn't based on another work. So the new movie was based on the old movie, as opposed to being 2 movies both based on the same thing.

2) The original Ghostbusters was way more iconic and influential on popular culture than the Jumanji movie.

3) Half or more of the people who complained about the new Ghostbusters were doing so because of sexism.

Looks like they didn't listen to my suggestions.

Lol, I just saw the date on this hadn't remembered this at all, and when I saw the preview a few days ago it was the first I heard of it.

Hollywood won't be happy until every single fucking film in existence has been remade at least twice.

I'm also a fan of Jumanji.

Oh, and fuck that fucking Ghostbusters travesty that I haven't even seen, yet still know it's fucking terrible and a total insult.

We are allowed to swear excessively on this board, right?

^ sexism

The new Jumanji has Karen Gillan. The original did not have Karen Gillan. Therefore the new one is superior to the original. Logic.

The original had Kirsten Dunst. The new one doesn't. Kirsten Dunst > Karen Gillan.

Derived Absurdity wrote:The original had Kirsten Dunst. The new one doesn't. Kirsten Dunst > Karen Gillan.

Said no sane person ever.

The Creep wrote:Hollywood won't be happy until every single fucking film in existence has been remade at least twice.

I'm also a fan of Jumanji.

I mean a fair number of beloved Hollywood movies were already remakes (Or additional adaptations of the same source material if you want to be more accurate in some cases). You could probably argue that Hollywood makes less remakes now than they used to.

Like nobody complains that The Wizard of Oz was like the sixth or seventh time that particular Frank L. Baum story was adapted in Hollywood for a reason. If the Jumanji remake is bad, it won't be because it is a remake.

CashRules wrote:

Derived Absurdity wrote:The original had Kirsten Dunst. The new one doesn't. Kirsten Dunst > Karen Gillan.

Said no sane person ever.

ur mean

Oh, I kind of forgot I saw this a few days ago. It was okay. It didn't take itself very seriously, and I found myself okay with it being a sequel or a reboot or whatever it was. The Jumanji board literally turns itself into a video game because apparently it agreed with one of the main characters that nobody plays board games anymore and it needed to stay relevant. It was funny. Some parts of it were sort of heart-warming. That was all it was trying to be so I guess it's a success. I mean, pretty much everything from the action to the character dynamics was executed well. The entire movie had a warm-hearted and good-natured and light-hearted tone throughout which makes it impossible for me to dislike it very much.

Yeah, it was a fun movie. Not as good, story-wise, as the original, but it was entertaining enough.