WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Patrick Swayze's "Road House" Getting a Remake

Posted: November 24th, 2013 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Patrick SwayzeSubmit Comment
MGM is planning to remake Patrick Swayze's 1989 film "Road House" and has hired Rob Cohen (The Fast and the Furious, xXx) to direct from a script by Michael Stoker.

The original film followed a tough bouncer with a mysterious past who is hired to tame a dirty bar in Missouri. It co-starred Kelly Lynch and Sam Elliot.

Despite only grossing $30 million, "Road House" has become one of Swayze's most popular films, along with "Ghost," "Point Break" and "Dirty Dancing."

Source: The Wrap


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 36 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Cannon writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 8:27:14 AM


Of course it is.

Cydious writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 11:21:38 AM

But the only person who can roundhouse kick like Swayze is Chuck Norris, so that will be pretty bad :/
lppinto writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 12:04:06 PM

It will be called .. Road House of the Dead..
lppinto writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 12:04:36 PM

... and Patrick will do a cameo..
cress writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 12:12:09 PM

I hope they don't put this scene in the remake...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDcqzjZTi-c&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Deaft0ne writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 12:14:52 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOrk-stlRTI
Cannon writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 12:29:44 PM


Pain don't hurt.

Džeko writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 1:02:12 PM

Lemme guess...Dwayne Johnson will play the main role.
PORN-FLY writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 3:37:11 PM

GIT ON AWAY FROM ME WITH THIS NEWS

COME ON NOW,GIT!
PORN-FLY writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 3:38:01 PM

they should remake part2
BadChadB33 writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 4:14:58 PM

Ghost remake next.
minkowski writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 4:20:55 PM

Awesome. The movie no one remembers, the movie no one really likes, the movie no one ever needed, is getting a modern reboot no one wanted.
Zeroguy writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 4:39:37 PM

Awesome 80s movie that's going to be tarnished with a modern day remake with Zac Efron and dub step. Ugh.
PORN-FLY writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 5:31:01 PM

MINK
you need to hang around with more 'hip' people

sorry
but that may also mean less attractive people
but thatll just make you even more attractive by comparison
minkowski writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 5:32:48 PM

PORNFLY

I need to hang around women who give it up to anyone anything with a d*ck.
PORN-FLY writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 5:48:28 PM

theres plenty of women around that are like that,MINK

they just always have a d*ck in them

the trick is to catch them in between weiners
minkowski writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 5:51:01 PM

You just would not believe how many times the word "hipster" and "bullsh*t" coincide on this website. Unfortunately, most of those instances occur within this thread alone

http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=22273
minkowski writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 5:58:56 PM

PORNFLY

They must all live somewhere else, then, because the chicks here walk around like every man is going to rape them.

Must be a California thing.
nuttie30xx writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 6:20:54 PM

why it don't need to be remade a bit like total recall as a remake it was sh*t but if it was called something else it would of been OK surely they can come up with another name
minkowski writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 6:32:41 PM

The Thing prequel was decent, Dredd was decent, the Fright Night remake was decent...not every reboot falls into the Total Recall/Man of Steel camp.
Stapes writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 6:58:11 PM

You want to see a great idea for a sequel to the thing, check out collative learning on youtube.
Stapes writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 7:12:41 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HIgZ8kGUT8
minkowski writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 7:12:49 PM

^^Thanks for that one.

And I know I said "prequel" and also "reboot", regarding The Thing (2011), but anyone who has seen the film knows its both a prequel and a reboot, if that makes any sense at all. Chronologically, yes, a prequel, but in style, substance and story, a reboot.
Zeroguy writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 8:09:45 PM

@mink
The Thing prequel missed the mark. The director had the right intentions but the studio f*cked him with their cgi forced bs.
Fright Night has a good tone but acting was bland.

Dredd is f*cking amazing. It helps that the writer understood the comic and made it grimdark without it feeling forced and seem like it's following Batman and the grimdark adaptations of comics (a la Man of sh*t). So I don't count that as a remake.

It's just that a Road House remake seems dumb. What's there to say that the original did (which was Patrick Swayze is f*cking rad sometimes).

Hollywood is just getting tired. It's sad to see all these indie filmmakers with original stories/films, wanting to further their career/passion yet H-Wood would rather ignore them in turn to tell Texas Chainsaw Massacre on a cheaper budget.
the_chosen_one writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 8:15:04 PM

As long as the Henchman/Assassin character sent to kill him still says "I used to f*ck guys like you in prison" before getting his throat ripped out, I won't complain too much...
cress writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 8:22:17 PM

@zeroguy. I agree with you about THE THING and DREDD. THE THING was a reboot and a sequel, but wound up being a piss-poor, bland and boring rehash of Carpenter's classic. There was no tension or palpable sense of fear, and Mary Winstead, who I love, was a bit too comatose in her role. I actually did enjoy some of the creativity of cgi, though. DREDD just f*cking kicked ass, period.
cress writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 8:23:46 PM

^^meant prequel and reboot
cress writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 8:58:21 PM

@Stapes. Cool link.

As for the ending with Macready and Childs, and whether Child's was infected--Carpenter stated that he thought it was obvious that Childs was infected, in that you see Macready's breath in the arctic chill, but you don't see Childs.
Zeroguy writes:
on November 24th, 2013 at 10:10:55 PM

@Cress
I loves Dredd. But I'm a fanboy of the comics/progs so of course I would love the movie.
The Thing prequel should have used the intended prac effects that the director wanted. But I think the studio felt pressure that people would not like that and opted out for cgi (again, I'm guessing).
Stapes writes:
on November 25th, 2013 at 7:01:48 AM

You are correct, zeroguy. Amalgamated Dynamics did practical fx for The Thing and was so disheartened that cgi was used instead that they started a kickstarter campaign to make a horror sci fi using only practical fx.
Stapes writes:
on November 25th, 2013 at 10:36:06 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzpT7VmSaU
minkowski writes:
on November 25th, 2013 at 5:44:21 PM

The Thing 2011 did have sh*tty CGI, as far as lighting and textures when, but it was well-modeled and animated. They probably could have used a bigger budget, which would have given them access to higher-end render farms. Makes a huge difference to the final product.

As for Dredd versus all the others...Dredd was filmed inside a large building, so there was no need for extensive set-extension CGI. Some CG blood, bullets, smoke, some slow-motion and that's it about it. No monsters. No space ship. The setting itself lent the film a better, more efficient use of VFX.







"stated that he thought it was obvious that Childs was infected, in that you see Macready's breath in the arctic chill, but you don't see Childs."

I think you mean Antarctic. They were at the South Pole not the North, and wouldn't have been standing outside like that in the real world because they would have frozen to death within five seconds, so the lack of breath on one guy versus the other is like Kenny Wayne Shepperd's "blue on black, tears on a river" thing, but I hear what you're saying Carpenter said, although he could have made it a bit more clear, visually and/or stylistically.

The fact though that Childs was "the thing" meant either Childs killed MacReady and then went back into a dormant state (too cold for it to have continued traipsing about) or MacReady killed it and that's the end of The Thing, which means a sequel isn't terribly likely.

I do feel the guy Stapes linked too has a good idea, specially moving the action to an underground bunker in the face of a full-on global invasion, and he (the video author) is right such a scheme would recapture the original film's horrific sense of isolation and claustrophobia, but it would also undermine Carpenter's ambiguous finale.

He also gets a few other issues wrong, like criticizing the 2011 film for its character design by claiming many of the monsters look like toothy vaginas, when in reality they look like hungry orifices in general and nothing "sexual" whatsoever. Why not hungry mouths, or anuses? Why vaginas even though the character design isn't overtly sexual? Bizarre.

Also, his title The Thing Inside is relatively simple, but says nothing special. The Thing Inside. Wasn't that the theme of the first two films, which were just The Thing? What's so special about the third film that it would demand an additional word to its title, one that adds no extra information regarding the film's content, especially when he says it will ape Carpenter's original modern classic? The Thing Inside the World, maybe, but not just The Thing Inside, which is redundant and thus unnecessary.


There's other issues with that guy's ideas and criticisms, but suffice to say the video is interesting int hat he does give the third film a great and plausible setting, even if such would be nothing more than another retread of the 1982 film, this time with marines and whatnot. Guess he['s envisioning an Aliens kind of flick.

So, perhaps, War of the Things, Or just The Things, going along with the Alien to Aliens analogy.

As for The Thing remake/prequel, yes, as I said above, the CGI wasn't up to snuff, and Winstead sort of walked through her role, although she was given very little to do really inside the simulacrum of the film, and sure, the movie is largely a hurried reworking of the original, which meant there was nothing new to see, but considering how EVERYONE here said it, and the Fright Night reboot, would be absolutely awful, I was actually surprised it was better than most of us expected.
minkowski writes:
on November 25th, 2013 at 5:47:06 PM

"The Thing prequel should have used the intended prac effects that the director wanted. But I think the studio felt pressure that people would not like that and opted out for cgi (again, I'm guessing)."



Actually, according to IMDb:

"The creature effects were done primarily with cable-operated animatronic robots on the director's insistence, since it would improve the performances of the cast if they saw what they had to react to. Computer-generated images were used to add elements to the animatronics (such as tentacles), or in some cases, to replace the entire animatronic if it didn't behave convincingly."

minkowski writes:
on November 25th, 2013 at 5:56:17 PM

Oh yeah. That video author guy. He says something about the 2011 getting it wrong in that The Thing cannot replicate non-living matter, but then complains that it replicates clothes instead of ripping through them, and then goes on to say it's fine that The Thing in Carpenter's film could replicate hair and nails and skin even though all of those are dead, not living, which seems to me he fails to understand the difference between organic and inorganic chemistry, which then means Childs wasn't The Thing since he still has his earring near the film's conclusion.

Whatever. If The Thing can replicate organic matter, he can replicate DEAD organic matter, like hair and nails. If it cannot replicate clothes than how does it go around wearing them in Carpenter's film? Some clothing is organic, some of it not so much. If it rips through shirts and pants then how does it reassemble them later? I can see it being able to recreate certain clothing, clothing that originated through organic chemistry like cotton and wool, and not synthetic fibers, but that would mean everyone in Carpenter's film was wearing organic.

So the author doesn't seem to understand the film's chemistry.

The way I see it...it can recreate most organic materials, either dead or alive, but not CRYSTALLINE elements and compounds like iron and steel. Such a solution resolves all contradictions and makes both films more harmonious in that respect.
minkowski writes:
on November 25th, 2013 at 6:11:00 PM

Of course, if The Thing cannot assimilate/copy metal, then it can't copy hemoglobin, which is an iron atom wrapped in protein IIRC, which might perhaps explain the blood test, even if when they put fire to blood from one of The Things it horrifically transforms, which is kind of weird because if it cannot assimilate/copy blood, you shouldn't find it there.

Also, there's metal in your bones. It's called strontium. So if The Thing cannot replicate metals, how does it assimilate bones and teeth and blood?

The chemistry of The Thing makes no sense. Organic versus inorganic, metals versus non-metals, with or without The Thing 2011, the monster's chemistry is bizarre and contradictory.

The only way I can explain it...The Thing can replicate anything at all. Clothes, hair, nails, dead skin....and metals, but only in a very limited way, which is just perfect for the films' shared premise, contrived that it is.

And no, if you take the iron out of blood, if you say The Thing only crudely imitates hemoglobin, the human, copy or not, would very quickly expire.
minkowski writes:
on November 25th, 2013 at 6:21:40 PM

As Andrea Carraro froom IMDb says:

"Another plothole is: if the Thing only duplicates organic tissue, how can it duplicate the clothing of its victims? Wool, cotton and leather would make sense but what about a goretex jacket or a metal belt buckle? Victims should come out cloned but naked ..."


Exactly. So the first film doesn't make perfect sense either.

As to whether the issue is a plot hole or a conceptual hole, I would say both, in that if we establish The Thing cannot make replicate inorganic matter and yet goes around reconstituting inorganic clothing, like belt buckles and shoe lace loopholes, then we've undermined one the film's central tenets, a tenet that clearly underpins the plausibility of The Thing's mechanics.

In other words, if The Thing itself, in actions, behavior and construction, is not logically consistent, then the film's plot doesn't work because the character is absolutely central to the film, hence the title of both films.


There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved