The Gang of Five
The Land Before Time => General Land Before Time => Topic started by: ScratteLover2 on June 04, 2010, 10:53:28 AM
-
According to this website (http://www.flickr.com/photos/10072627@N04/2204217832/), a remake of the land before time currently in productin, and is scheduled for release somewhere from 2011 to 2013.
This is all the information that is known:
A remake of The Land Before Time is currently in production, it is due for release anywhere from 2011-2013. The director is going to be Peter Jackson, it will be produced by Don Bluth, Gary Goldman and Barrie M. Osborne. Littlefoot, Cera, Ducky, Petrie, Spike and Littlefoot's mother will be returning for the remake. In the remake, the children will be seperated by their families due to an earthquake, and a meteor shower. It will feature non-lyrical music done by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard. The writer of the remake will be Jared Hess. It is supposed to have a running time of 3 hours in the theatre release and 3 hrs 52 minutes in the uncut version. There will be three t-rex instead of one, [[Sharptooth (character)|Sharptooth]], [[Red Claw]] and Dark Claw. It is currently in production, and it has not set release date. It will also feature all the characters from the first movie, and a new character, an iguanodon called Argos.
-
This is nonsense.
It is wishful thinking of a fan who seems to have lost all touch with reality.
Peter Jackson making a remake of LBT riiiighht...
Seriously think about it for a second and you will realize that it is nonsense. The GOF is not supposed to be a dump for baseless rumors.
-
yeah this is a definite fake. Although they are doing a remake of NIMH, I don't see them remaking land before time.
-
I'm skeptical about this as well. If I see an official trailer for it, then I'll believe it.
-
This is clearly a dream, nothing more. This will most likely never happen. I cannot see a remake of something already so treasured occurring, and I think making it PG-13, no matter how mild, would defeat Don Bluth's purpose of making a dark family film. This person truly is getting his hopes up for something that will most likely never happen.
-
I don't believe this in the least. It would've been on Universal's official site by now if this were for real <_<.
-
This is obviously a false "remake." Just more wishful thinking.
On a minor note, is anyone for locking or removing topics that say that there is a sequel, remake, or new TV season without good evidence?
-
Next time try doing some research before posting a link to something that does not exist.
-
Next time try doing some research before posting a link to something that does not exist.
What are you talkin about? The link goes to the website.
-
The problem is that this is a private webpage which anyone could create. There is no larger company, group of people in a position to make decisions, or any other authority whatsoever behind it.
It is important to recognize the difference between credible and officially confirmed information on the web and wishful thinking or fantasies of singular individuals.
I could create a webpage which claimed for the earth to be a flat disk, but if I did that it wouldn't make the claim any more true.
-
This screams fake. It's all over it. :rolleyes:
Wishful thinking is good, but one's gotta keep perspective. Especially on the net.
-
Best to wait till official word from Universal or some other official type person or thing like that. At least that is how I feel.
-
Wow. One would think that a person would have a little more imagination and at least TRY to make it sound convincing. :rolleyes: This must be some kind of joke rather than someone trying to deceive people.
-
ScratteLover, I only have one question: How oblivious are you to fake informations like these, exactly? :blink:
-
ScratteLover, I only have one question: How oblivious are you to fake informations like these, exactly? :blink:
NO, I not oblivious, Because I can tell when stuff is fake, that's why I only included stuff that seemed real in the first post, not the fake stuff people have pointed out.
-
I read the whole thing. It is totally unbelievable. I mean a 3 hour long children's film that is PG-13?
Granted it sounds like an awesome idea for an epic fan fiction.
-
A better question might be why did you think it was real, Scrattelover?
-
I just have to ask ScratteLover2 here to just stop with posting false information. It's getting annoying.
-
I just have to ask ScratteLover2 here to just stop with posting false information. It's getting annoying.
It's not my fault everything I post is rumor, I just post anything I find about LBT, I'm not trying to be annoying. I'm sorry if I was being annoying, I'll only post something if it's actually believable.
-
I just post anything I find about LBT
You sound like a forum bot, lol. :p
-
I just post anything I find about LBT
Here. I can help you in that regard:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=l...fdf66882bd03aae (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=land+before+time&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=dfdf66882bd03aae)
But seriously, please only post verified information. If everyone posts every rumor out there, the board will be filled with junk.
-
I just have to ask ScratteLover2 here to just stop with posting false information. It's getting annoying.
It's not my fault everything I post is rumor, I just post anything I find about LBT, I'm not trying to be annoying. I'm sorry if I was being annoying, I'll only post something if it's actually believable.
While it is not your fault that everything you post is false, that still doesn't mean you should post everything you find about LBT. In that logic, you could find a degrading fanfic or picture of LBT and post that here, which is also not allowed.
I'm not trying to put you down or anything because I understand how hopeful you are that something else will come out in the future. I think we are all trying to tell you that you should research EVERY nook and crany on anything you read regarding LBT.
For future reference, if you read an article and it was not written or provided by Universal, then it is best not to post it, especially if it is from Wikipedia.
-
If people aren't mad at me, then explain these to quotes:
2007excalibur2007
QUOTE (2007excalibur2007 @ Jun 3 2010, 11:01 PM)
ScratteLover, I only have one question: How oblivious are you to fake informations like these, exactly?
pokeplayer984
I just have to ask ScratteLover2 here to just stop with posting false information. It's getting annoying.
Also, 2007excalibur2007 has been trashing mine and Gloverboy21's fanart, just because it looks edited, when none of it is, except for the picture of Guan, I'm starting to get sick of him always trashing my hard work at making those pictures, if he ever made fanart, he wouldn't like it if I made fun of his pictures. I'm also getting tired of seeing that picture of Littlefoot with a spongebob head always popping up, even the posters, just because they are made using screenshots dosen't mean he has to trash them.
Read these if you don't believe him about trashing my fanart and fanposters:
QUOTE (2007excalibur2007 @ Jun 3 2010, 11:01 PM)
Soooo... tell me again why you're uploading all these pictures? Because obviously they aren't yours or your friend's. And as for that Dilo picture, I can obviously tell that's not the real background - the colors don't even blend in. It looks more like a screenshot taken from an animated movie of some sort.
Fanart? More like fanedit.
I'm pretty sure that the guidelines said be nice to others users, this guy hasn't been.
All he had to say here was about one of Gloverboy's pictures was taken from DeviantArt, I never knew where he got it from. I only look up ice age, lbt, surf's up and happy feet.
http://maniraptora.deviantart.com/art/Simp...hosaurus&qo=322 (http://maniraptora.deviantart.com/art/Simp...hosaurus&qo=322)
Oh the irony...
And I have a feeling there are going to be more later.
-
Actually a lot of the artwork I've seen you post is edited. It's obvious to me that a lot of them were made using screenshots. Using screenshots and changing them is considered editing. I've seen a lot of fanwork done that way. Some people that type of fanwork. Others do not. Matter of taste I think.
Also, 2007excalibur2007 was not trashing the artwork; he was simply pointing out his observations. He has not said one thing to you that is against the rules. He has not said anything that terrible to you. Pointing out artwork is edited is not an attack, but a statement of fact.
Keep in mind I am not saying this to be mean. I'm just trying to clear up any possible confusion to avoid misunderstandings.
On another note, that "Littlefoot with Spongebob's head" is actually "Littlefoot with The Cheese's head". The Cheese is a character created by Filburt, a character from Rocko's Modern Life. I drew that picture actually, during a chat I had with 2007excalibur2007 using the Draw option on Windows Live Messenger (difficult since it's harder to draw with a mouse), and he saved and colored it and chose a background for it.
-
ScratteLover, he wasn't being mean to you in anyway. He was merely pointing out what we have been pretty much telling you, that the information you have been posting is unfortunately fake. Again, you didn't know that, but he is implying that you need to do more research instead of hastily posting things.
Also, I agree with Kacie. Whether something can be considered fanart or editing is entirely in a matter of taste. In my personal opinion, the things you have been posting appear edited, but that's okay. There is nothing wrong with posting a couple images or two once in a while in that manner, but you are posting numerous "edits" every day when most of them either look the same or use the same screen shots.
Nobody is trying to bash you in anyway ScratteLover, and I'm not trying to bash you either. We are simply trying to help you understand the difference between posting helpful, interesting items and rapidly posting rumors and identical edits.
-
More importantly ScratteLover, when you take someone else's artwork and edit it without even asking permission from the original author and then claiming it as "your fanart" (or Gloverboy's, whatever :p), you're technically infringing that author's copyrights, and THAT, I believe, is against the rules.
But since it's a fanart (or should I say fanedit? :p), I guess there's still some tolerance for that sort of thing.
-
I think this topic is going off track again and either should be closed or the current discussion moved to PM's or something.
-
Alright just so we're clear, something like this is a fanedit http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=sasgay&ord...set=48#/d1dgv9g (http://browse.deviantart.com/?q=sasgay&order=9&offset=48#/d1dgv9g) this is fanart http://animeboye.deviantart.com/art/Land-B...umans-112920787 (http://animeboye.deviantart.com/art/Land-Before-Time-Humans-112920787)
Fanart is when you draw the entire thing. A fanedit is taking already existing pictures and cropping them together or doodling over them a la the first link I posted. Now I've seen your stuff over on the Visual Arts boards and I'm sorry if this offends you but yes, they are fanedits.
As for posting rumors and stuff, what annoys me about it is that there's no validity behind these rumors. It's pointless speculation. As I said in a previous topic, we won't know if there's going to be an LBT 14 unless Universal themselves says something on the issue. As of now they have not said anything about it so who knows. There could be a fourteenth movie, but then again, there could not be one. Also, Peter Jackson doing a Land Before Time remake? WTF???
-
Now I've seen your stuff over on the Visual Arts boards and I'm sorry if this offends you but yes, they are fanedits.
Actually, not all of the pictures are fan edits. The pictures of Ruby (The Red Dino), the pictures of Rudy's parents and grandparents, Gloria (The Penguin, expect the background, that's a screenshot), the family tree of Rudy, expect for four pictures the one of Rudy, Flood, Barry and Rudy's dad, I made all them. The Title Cards I have for my fanfictions, completely made by me (Happy Halloween, Merry Christmas), The poster for Momma, I Blew Up the Hatchling was completly made by Gloverboy. The picture Ruby, Ruby, Littlefoot, etc, they were made by me on paint. The one of Momma and the background is a part of another picture, but that's it. The one of Yoko in the city, completly made by gloverboy21. See, not all of our pictures are "fanedit."
-
You're right. It's both fanart and fanediting.
If I took an already existing picture of Littlefoot and drew, say one of the South Park characters riding on his back, it's both fanart and fanediting. I took an already existing picture and added to it. That's what editing is. You edit something on a picture or you edit a scene in a movie, you're adding more to it or taking away from it.
What are you getting so snappy at me(and especially 2007Excalibur2007) for anyway? I didn't say anything bad about your pictures. All I did was correct you and explain to you the difference between fanart and fanedits. Sorry if I offended you but you know what? That comes with being an artist. You get praise, you get criticism, you get people that hate what you do, you get people that love every little thing you do, and you get people that correct you on certain things. Also, mind you that you're posting your Ice Age pictures on the worldwide web. That means anyone with access to a computer can view them and critique or praise them, even the not-so-nice-people.
You sort of remind me of me when I was starting out as an artist. I hated receiving any form of criticism, be it good or bad. But after awhile I realized that since I was posting my stories and art on the Internet, and because I had(and still have) aspirations of becoming a comic artist, I was opening my work up to both praise and criticism. I realized that I needed to either learn to accept whatever form of critique I got or just quit drawing.
If you're passionate about what you're doing, then learn to accept any and all forms of critique. Because you know what? Sometimes the people that will critique your work are actually huge fans of it.
-
More importantly ScratteLover, when you take someone else's artwork and edit it without even asking permission from the original author and then claiming it as "your fanart" (or Gloverboy's, whatever :p), you're technically infringing that author's copyrights, and THAT, I believe, is against the rules.
But since it's a fanart (or should I say fanedit? :p), I guess there's still some tolerance for that sort of thing.
Well actually, when I uploded pictures that used his, he never said anything about them. And for the third time, they do belong to me and Gloverboy21, we took alot of time to make them, some from scraps of pictures, or hard to see pictures or just by ourselves.
-
It seems this topic got way off course, I think. Perhaps we should try to get back on topic. ScratteLover, if you still wish to continue on with this fanart/fanedit discussion, you can make another topic about it.
Anyway back on topic. It would be interesting if they did do a remake of LBT. It's not likely to happen though.
-
I wouldn't want an LBT remake. Sure it would be nice to (possibly) see Land Before Time on the bigscreen(wasn't born until 1990) and it might bring the series back up to steam but at what cost? A more than likely mediocre remake of a great kid's movie(Come on, are remakes ever truly good)?
With the current trend of kids movies being all jokes, with so little story put in, I can't see a remake doing the series any wonders. All I see is that a remake would more than likely be riddled with pop culture references, fart gags, and very inappropriate, and possibly sexually suggestive jokes (i.e Littlefoot: Cera, stop. You're making me horny).
Also, could a remake really recapture all of the touching moments in the original? The death of Littlefoot's mom, the gang sleeping together in that giant footprint, finally defeating the Sharptooth and finding the Great Valley?
I say nay to a Land Before Time remake. I've already had one precious childhood memory destroyed by Hollywood, I don't need another (potentially) destroyed.
-
I'm not completely against the idea of a remake, but I won't be bent out of shape if they don't do it. I'm more neutral on it. If they make it, fine. If they don't make it, okay. Not a big deal to me.
-
I'm not completely against the idea of a remake, but I won't be bent out of shape if they don't do it. I'm more neutral on it. If they make it, fine. If they don't make it, okay. Not a big deal to me.
I totally agree with this statement :exactly. I would rather Universal focus its energy on continuing the LBT series but only if it produces much higher quality future projects. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
-
Come on, are remakes ever truly good
The Nutty Professor and Peter Jackson's King Kong were alright.
-
There are times when remakes can be good.
The problem with remakes, I think, is that different people expect different things, thus it's impossible to satisfy everyone. Some people may want the remake to be just like the original, but others may criticize the movie as a result, perhaps regarding a 100% exact reproduction (except with different actors and better special effects) as a sign of lazy directors.
Some people may want the remake to resemble the original, but also be its own story, with some things changed around so that the remake is still able to throw a few surprises here or there. But some people seem to hate this type of remake, stating that there should be more of an attempt to make the remake like the original.
All in all, I think the real reason remakes don't do as good as originals isn't because the remakes are always bad; it's because people expect too much from remakes. However, if people were to stop comparing remakes and originals, and start to expect a remake as a new movie with a new story rather than be 100% faithful to the original, remakes may do better, in my opinion.
If I had to choose, I'd want a remake to still resemble the original, but at the same time, also be different, with some aspects changed, so that it actually feels like I'm watching a new movie rather than a 100% replica of an old movie, just with graphics enhanced and actors changed.
-
Another thing about remakes is that it all depends on the director's point of view. Most of the time the director wants to put their own creative spin on an already classic, and while sometimes this works other times not so much. If you take Nightmare on Elm Street, the remake added more scenes of gore, like all horror movie remakes do. The director may have thought that while the original movie was definitely scary, it could have been more bloody, and therefore decided to tweak things around to do so.
I think remakes and sequels get the most unfair treatment from fans. Like Kacie said, everybody expects something different from these movies and it is impossible to please everybody.
-
On top of those ones mentioned, The Dark Knight is actually a remake of the 1980s film, Batman. The Dark Knight is one of the best films of the 21st Century. It is a remake, but it kicks so much @$$ that it doesn't matter.
You see? Remakes can be good. You just need the right writer, director, producer, etc.
As for me, no remake wanted, but I would LOVE to have the deleted scenes put in. (Even if it has to be a Bonus Feature.) I still wonder what Spielberg did with them.
-
I wouldn't really call The Dark Knight a remake. It's more of a re-imagining of the 1980's movie.
Batman Begins was considered a reboot of the Batman movies after the failure that was Batman and Robin, which for some reason I enjoy anyway. Because Batman Begins started it's own series or franchise of Batman movies, The Dark Knight really isn't remaking the 1980's movie. I believe that Nolan stated that he wanted to make re-imaginings of the older Batman movies, but not remake them entirely.
One good example of a remake done well is Dawn of the Dead. The original Romero movie is a classic, considered to be his best work of all time, so remaking this movie was a challenge on its own. Thankfully, the remake does the original justice in my opinion. Sure the zombies are much faster than before, but the movie still contains the charm that the original set forth.
In all honesty, a remake of The Land Before Time is not impossible at all. If done correctly, a remake could be very good. Then again, some remakes fall under the trend of straying too far away from the original source to be considered relevant to the original at all.
-
You see? Remakes can be good. You just need the right writer, director, producer, etc.
I agree, Curse of the Komodo and KvC: Komodo vs. Cobra are the same way, although I do like Curse of the Komodo better, because it has better actors and more guns. But critics think KvC is better for some reason.
-
The problem I have with remakes isn't that I think they're all bad(I actually liked Bloody Valentine 3-D better than the original) it's just that most of them aren't really necessary. Did we need a remake of Friday the 13th? Did we need A Nightmare on Elm Street remake? Or a remake of Halloween and Psycho? In my opinion, no, no, no, and HELL NO! These movies were all great in their own way and people still talk about them even though they have been around for decades. Personally though, I wish Hollywood would come up with their own ideas instead of remaking and adapting everything *Is still hoping the Monopoly and Marvin the Martian movies are just rumors*
-
And going on with that, I don't think remakes of Clash of the Titans, Cheaper by the Dozen, Yours Mine & Ours (I only saw the original with Lucille Ball and LOVED it :DD ), Shaggy Dog, blah blah blah, were necessary either.
-
I don't think remakes are necessary at all, Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho is more than enough proof, same goes to the Clash Of The Titans remake.
-
It would be nice if they would make more original movies rather than recycling old movies so much. Although I wouldn't go as far as say there's "no point at all" in doing remakes.
-
The point of remakes is to reintroduce something to a new audience. While most people go into remakes having seen the original, there are the few that have never seen the original. This way, the remake can appeal to viewers that are new to the franchise.
Another reason why remakes are made is to try and take a classic and re do it with the technology that we have now. Horror movies are victim to this because almost every single classic horror movie has a remake to make it bloodier. While this doesn't work for all of them, there are a few that actually surpass the original (Texas Chainsaw Massacre).
-
Either epic sucess, or epic fail remake.
-
I'm sorry but you can't beat the origanal. It's just not possible. And CGI? I prefer animation thanks. I just can't imagine them doing a remake. I know I would probably see it. Just when it comes out on video though. Only when I see a trailer or an OFFICIAL short clip willIi believe it.
On a brighter note. Maybe it will be good. IF it comes out that is. Might be even better than the first one. I'm pretty skeptical about that. But anywho it could be a huge sucess. Maybe even get a larger, older audience and might become more popular? Becausethe series is kinda babyish and maybe this one will be more, dare I say it, violent. Maybe a possible death scene? Who knows how this'll be.