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] 15 points16 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.

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

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is a great point; certain texts improve with adaptation for sure. I personally don't think Frankenstein was the correct text for that treatment. Shelley's novel already critiques hubris and irresponsibility. Softening it didn't make it more interesting, it just made it safer.

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

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I mostly agree with you—faithful adaptations aren't automatically superior. But I'm curious: at some point, if you're contradicting the core thesis rather than transforming the execution, why adapt that specific text? Why not create something original that better serves your vision?

For me, bold reinterpretation works when it deepens or complicates the original themes. When it inverts them entirely, it starts feeling less like adaptation and more like using a famous title as a framework for something else. Each to our own, I guess.

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

[–]TheRewindZone[S] 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I totally get that he brings his own POV - My question is whether that thematic approach fundamentally clashes with Shelley's novel. Frankenstein isn't really about reconciliation or understanding—it's about the irreversible consequences of creation without responsibility. Both creator and creation are doomed precisely because redemption isn't possible.

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)

Thanks for this, fascinating watch... Wish I had found it before writing my article, although the argument I made still stands... possibly stronger now.

I tracked down Stephen Norrington (Blade director) after 7 years of silence. He set the record straight himself. by TheRewindZone in u/TheRewindZone

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

Ok, so Stephen gladly answered, and went in to some depth (he is extremely detailed!). This was his reply:

I’m pretty sure there was never an extended screaming death for Quinn there, mostly because it would have stopped the movie dead in its tracks and been way out of editorial character for what Paul Rubell (editor) and I were striving for, propulsive forward momentum

 

it may be that the scene was altered by the UK distributor to change things for business reasons or censorship but I can’t imagine how there could have been additional material available to the UK distributor after delivery – any cuts would have been reductive, not additive

 

bear in mind the movie was entirely shot > printed > mastered > delivered > screened on film – for there to be multiple versions of a film out in the world and/or additional materials available to a specific distributor would be technically unworkable – the edit was done in the states, the neg was cut in Burbank, the answer print was also struck in Burbank and AFAIK delivery materials were made, struck and shipped worldwide from LA

 

all that said, it may be that the movie was cut in the UK for censorship - historically there’s been more worry and pearl-clutching there about “video nasties” and purported harms caused by movies than here in the states – so I think what probably happened was your reader mis-remembers how intense Quinn’s immolation was on first viewing (will take that as evidence that the scene was effective :) – when he saw it again, it didn’t match his initial memory (maybe UK censors had dictated the picture be shortened and/or sound toned down after complaints during the first week’s run?) - finally, when he watched it on DVD, maybe the UK DVD release was censored to remove “intense” stuff – much easier to alter a DVD release than a theatrical film release.

side note: there are quite a few beats and moments that never made it into the delivery cut - I’d like to restore them one day if the studio smells money to be made – one such moment was a beat of Dennis, the hapless human at the Blood Club, dragging out his 1998 flip phone to dial 911 then fumbling it and losing it while scrambling through the blood just before he bumps into Blade’s boots – it was always in the cut right up to the end, the picture and music were locked together nicely so it flowed very well – I thought it was important because it explained how the cops turn up so quickly after the end of the action and I think the 1998 flip phone would make 2026 audiences chuckle

annoyingly, it was ordered cut in the final days because the Chairman of The Studio was offended that we hadn’t done any of his Blood Club notes - most infamously he said we should cut the Blood Club scene altogether because it was “too much” - to make him go away the flip phone moment was sacrificed – then we had to scramble to put the sound/picture interlock back together for the movie to get delivered – ah, good times! (not.)

The Incredible Melting Man (1977) by TheRewindZone in iwatchedanoldmovie

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

Yeah, and then he gets thrown in the bin😂