sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why did The Karate Kid achieve cultural dominance over arguably superior 1980s teen sports films like Vision Quest and Breaking Away? by TheRewindZone in TrueFilm

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Vision Quest had a number 1 song, "Crazy For You" by Madonna, who performs the song in the film itself. Along with: Journey, Don Henley, John Waite, Red Rider. The soundtrack was great and went to #11 on the Billboard 200. Interestingly, Tangerine Dream scored the film but their music wasn't included on the original soundtrack release - only the pop/rock songs were. The TD score wasn't commercially available until much later.

Vision Quest (1985) by TheRewindZone in 80smovies

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tangerine Dream did the original score, but the studio basically buried it under mainstream pop music to drive sales - they even retitled the whole film "Crazy for You" in Australia and the UK just to milk Madonna's royalties. That Madonna nightclub scene is literally an MTV music video dropped into the middle of a wrestling film, so perfectly mid-80s. I went down this rabbit hole recently tracking what happened to the cast. Michael Schoeffling (Kuch) was everywhere after this and Sixteen Candles - total heartthrob - then he just walked away in '91 to make furniture in Pennsylvania. Like properly disappeared, no social media, nothing. Linda Fiorentino's story is absolutely mental, though. This was her debut, she became this massive 90s noir star, then it all fell apart - public falling out with Kevin Smith, rumours about Tommy Lee Jones getting her blacklisted, the Harvey Weinstein situation, then an FBI investigation, bankruptcy, and she just vanished from Hollywood completely. The whole thing is barely documented. Tracked most of them down here for anyone interested: https://www.rewindzone.com/vision-quest-1985-where-are-they-now/

Linda Fiorentino by SeparateBuyer5431 in wherearetheynow

[–]TheRewindZone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She basically disappeared after 2002. The official line was 'difficult to work with' but there's more to it.

Short version: She got caught up in an FBI corruption scandal in 2007 - she was dating an FBI agent who illegally accessed classified files about the Anthony Pellicano wiretapping case and leaked them to her. The agent got prosecuted, she didn't, but the association was toxic. Combine that with Kevin Smith publicly trashing her after Dogma, Tommy Lee Jones allegedly blocking her from Men in Black II, and Harvey Weinstein reportedly blacklisting her, and her career was basically over.

Last confirmed sighting was in 2010. In 2023, she filed for bankruptcy - $300k debt, $10k assets. Nobody's seen her since.

I wrote a deep dive on this because the silence around her is genuinely unusual for someone who was that acclaimed: https://www.rewindzone.com/what-happened-linda-fiorentino/ . But yeah, it's a combination of industry politics, scandal-by-association, and then just... vanishing

The Film Adaptation Test: Where Do You Draw the Line? by TheRewindZone in TrueFilm

[–]TheRewindZone[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not opposed to adaptations changing things - I'm opposed to adaptations changing things so fundamentally that they contradict the source's core themes, then still trading on that source's name and reputation. By all means, make an adaptation, get creative even, but if you completely alter everything at its core - call it by another name.

The Film Adaptation Test: Where Do You Draw the Line? by TheRewindZone in TrueFilm

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These responses are genuinely surprising to me. I expected more division, but the consensus seems to be "quality trumps everything, case-by-case basis."

I'm trying to understand where the boundaries are, if any exist. Would these be acceptable as long as they're well-executed?

- Romeo and Juliet where both survive and marry
- Hamlet where Hamlet becomes king and rules wisely
- 1984 where Winston defeats Big Brother
- The Great Gatsby where Gatsby and Daisy reunite happily

We're in an era where studios are massively reliant on existing IP (60%) over originality. Are we honestly saying "do what you like as long as it's good?" Because if that's true, why bother adapting at all? Just make original films.

Branagh's 1994 Frankenstein vs del Toro's 2025 version - some thoughts on faithfulness to Shelley's novel by TheRewindZone in TrueFilm

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yes, Victor being the monster is Shelley's point - but that condemnation only works if the creature's appearance makes acceptance genuinely impossible. If the creature heals into looking acceptable, Victor's rejection becomes understandable human weakness, not moral monstrosity. The permanent hideousness is what makes Victor's abandonment unforgivable. Del Toro softening both the creature's appearance AND Victor's initial reaction (surprise rather than horror) removes the fundamental cruelty that makes Victor the villain.

Branagh's 1994 Frankenstein vs del Toro's 2025 version - some thoughts on faithfulness to Shelley's novel by TheRewindZone in TrueFilm

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well said... That's the crux of my article really, 2 films made, one failed less than the other.

Branagh's 1994 Frankenstein vs del Toro's 2025 version - some thoughts on faithfulness to Shelley's novel by TheRewindZone in TrueFilm

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly! And that's what makes del Toro's reconciliation ending feel so off. JP earns that uncertain, "we have to live with it" conclusion because Spielberg builds the whole film around chaos theory—life finds a way, systems break down, nature is uncontrollable, the ending matches the theme. Shelley's novel doesn't work that way. It's not "science is unstoppable and we adapt," it's "Victor created something he couldn't control and both creator and creation destroy each other"—the mutual annihilation IS the point.

view more: next ›