The Shrine

Sounds more like a sequel according to the plot. I'm not so sure about this. Why do they have to keep remaking old movies!?! Clash of the Titans DOES NOT need a remake!!!! If this is a sequel, I'd be more ok with it, but they're labeling it as a remake.

The plot isn't remotely the same, how could it possibly be a remake? What irks me more is the "only survive if he can accept his power as a god"...it's one thing to not respect the original material, it's a new level when you dismiss the basics from the source material.

Born of a god but raised as a man, Perseus (Sam Worthington) is helpless to save his family from Hades (Ralph Fiennes), vengeful god of the underworld. With nothing left to lose, Perseus volunteers to lead a mission to defeat Hades before he can seize power from Zeus (Liam Neeson) and unleash hell on earth. Leading a daring band of warriors, Perseus sets off on a journey deep into forbidden worlds. Battling unholy demons and fearsome beasts, he will only survive if he can accept his power as a god, defy his fate and create his own destiny.

What the fuck is this shit? What the fuck is wrong with the commentators? This has NOTHING to do with Clash of the Titans. (Compared to the original plot summary.) This summary looks like it was pulled from the voiceover tag from some cheesy Hercules episode. Is Sam Raimi directing this piece of shit?

Daring band of warriors? He was fucking SOLO! There was no Hades versus Zeus. They were BROTHERS, and Hades was a good guy! Are you trying to turn a Greek fable into a Christian one? Hell on earth? It's not called Hell, you fucking morons! Unholy demons? What in the name of Zeus does "unholy" mean? Quit trying to pigeonhole the Greek mythos into your limited Christian theology!

See, shit like this gets the greenlight, but the remake of Logan's Run, which was going to be closer to the book source, starring DiCaprio, and directed by Bryan Singer, gets shitcanned. (Thanks, Singer! Superman Returns sucked!)

But it DOES have a good cast. I'd watch it, even if it does seem like it is wiping its ass with my beloved Greek Mythology.

Christianity owes its origins in Greece and Rome anyway. This doesn't look like the original at all; it's a new story. Whether it is inaccurate or not, it has Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson; both phenominal actors. If you don't like the inaccuracy and references to our culture in this one, then you have to dislike 300 for that same reason as well.

Yeah, but you have to understand where 300 came from. First of all, it was very accurate to the COMIC BOOK, which was its source material. Second, I consider 300 to be a retelling of the tales the warriors passed on about the battle. It was exaggerated because the tales were exaggerated. They fought millions of Persians, huge elephants, mystic masked warriors, all ruled by a god-emperor who seemed larger than life. The numbers and descriptions were exaggerated, to the point that you KNEW it was supposed to be an exaggeration, but the spirit of the tale was historically accurate.

Think of it like Big Fish, except as a Greek story.

This new "remake", on the other hand, looks like a heavy-handed run-of-the-mill "blockbuster hit" this side of Michael Bay. Even if it ends up being good, it's the dirty high you feel when you watch a Michael Bay film. Fine, it may be Transformers, but you feel guilty liking the movie.

It just occurred to me; Neeson and Fiennes? Shindler's List anyone?

That was probably the movie that established both of them as top actors.