MovieChat Forums > The Rocky Horror Picture Show: Let's Do the Time Warp Again (2016) Discussion > It's not a remake of the film, but the p...

It's not a remake of the film, but the play -- and it's fantastic!

posted 8 years ago by cteavin-1
7 replies | jump to latest

Haters gunna hate -- and I don't care.

Why remake the film? Because the number of young people who go to the cinema to see it are comparatively few, and be honest, when we go to see Rocky Horror in the theater we're not watching the movie BUT we're watching the experience of DOING the film. This remake captures the experience of watching TRH with the cut aways to the audience while making a bridge to a new generation with top notch production values AND vibrant colors.

In the original , after Sweet Transvestite, the film pretty much falls flat, but in the remake it keeps going strong.

One of my favorite numbers is Rose Tinted World. Compare it to the original. The new Brad and Janet really camp it up, the costuming and music are beautiful, and dance is fantastic and their dip in the pool is fun to watch.

Perhaps my favorite thing about the remake is that I understood something I'd never paid attention to in the original: Rocky Horror is about the transformative experience of watching a movie. Brad and Janet are us after the film -- after any film -- that is, affected and sometimes changed.

[–] Blue_Eyes_James 8 years ago

Actually no, it's a remake of the film. Richard O'Brien still owns the rights to the play and this was produced by Lou Adler who owns the film rights. If you were familiar with RHPS you would know the difference between the play and the film.

The song is called "Rose Tints My World", not "Rose Tinted World".

"top notch production values"? I wonder where those were.

"Haters gunna hate"? No one above the age of 16 says things like that! 😒

[–] Darko-Magick 8 years ago

Top notch production. Yea. If you think one long episode of Glee is top notch!

[–] readerf61 8 years ago

Don't insult Glee. They seemed to respect the song they covered. This whole thing seemed completely disrespectful to the original.

[–] Blue_Eyes_James 8 years ago

People forget that "Glee" respected all musicals. Glee didn't re-make any of them, and with RHPS they took the songs and wove them into a storyline. Their show probably did more to introduce virgins to the original movie by giving them a hint of how fun it could be. The cast was obviously having a blast.

I wasn't a regular watcher but if you wanted to introduce some classic musical numbers to a new generation that show was a pretty good way to do it!

[–] tika313 8 years ago

Did you see the play? It was not just a play, it was a musical. Laverne doesn't come within a mile of Tim Curry vocally. I had high hopes that the mistakes the first film contained would be corrected in this one owing to Kenny Ortega's involvement. But as the first film's missteps were in the miscasting of Brad and Janet, this one miscast the main character. That's hard to swallow. It's a musical, why not cast a singer? While I'm at it why not a man?

[–] DwightFry 8 years ago

It *is* a remake of the film, they even cut out the same stuff the 1975 version did (and then some) and kept the additions that the original film had and were not in the play. The only things where they went back to the play were the usherette and Columbia's lollipop.

This is not my signature. This is IMDb's automatic translation of my signature.

[–] KristenStewartForever 8 years ago

I entirely agree. It's better than the original. Aside from Tim Curry as Frank who is best.