Annoyance with remakes.

I've been banging this drum for a while.

I've even got some PERFECT "almost" movies to match up with director!

Like Clive Barker's Nightbreed redone by that guy who did Pan's Labyrinth who's name I can't remember due to me being SUCK.

Guillermo del Toro.

He's doing The Hobbit next.

That guy!

That guy would tots do justice to Nightbreed!

Hollywood always wants to play safe, and remakes are easier to market due to title recognition.

Also, you get a bigger audience if the original is in black and white (as is The Day The Earth Stood Still, which was one of the earliest SF films I remember seeing on TV, at the age of ten) or in a foreign language. Or not done with modern CGI effects, or made at a time when editing every five seconds or tweaking the image digitally wasn't the fashion.

At the moment they seem to be remaking every significant horror film of the Seventies - The Last House on the Left opened here this weekend.

Dommo said:

Am I the only person who's tired of remakes of good movies?

Click to expand...

No, honestly, that's pretty much what I've been hearing for the last 10 years. From everyone.

I thought it was a great idea to remake MY BLOODY VALENTINE, because no one really cared about that movie. But that's what Roger Ebert always said, "If you're going to remake a movie, remake a bad movie, not a good movie." There are so many movies that could have been great, but aren't, and still could be.

I like a lot of Japanese movies, and so many of them are being remade in America. I love the US version of THE RING. Even though I hate most of the others, I'm glad that it usually leads to the Japanese films being released over here, which probably would not happen otherwise.

I have to say, I think it's pretty funny that people got so upset about the remake of Friday the 13th. It was always a mainstream Hollywood slasher movie, and now it's remade into a mainstream Hollywood slasher movie.

The are remaking BATTLE ROYALE, and I am not happy about that. I don't think it would translate well to an American setting at all.

I recently watched the original The Taking of Pelham 123. I guess with the remake coming out now, they are going to set the story in a more technologically advanced world (i.e. present day versus the 70's).

Does that have value? Meh. The beauty of the original was the icyness of the Robert Shaw character and the classic expression on Walter Matthau's face that ends the movie. Stuff like that. It has nothing to do with the state of computerization in the subway system.

I don't want to shoot down the remake without seeing it but it doesn't seem necessary to me.

Remakes, remakes, remakes.

I guess I don't really mind them. But, the good ones are few and far in between.

I hated Halloween with every bit of me. I swear, if Rob Zombie remade Bambi he would have to put in a rape scene and the F and the C word a thousand times.

I walked out of The Fog (its okay though, I had walked in for free)

What is strange is that probably in thirty years they will want to be remaking Lord of the Rings.

I also don't like when they EddieMurphisize what were quality movies and go for low-ball humor.

In general, even though I bitch about remakes, the reason why remakes are more or less o.k. is that there is a really good chance the current generation has never even seen the original, or that they will ever see the original.

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is a perfect example of this. Probably 90% of today's generation have not (nor would have) seen the original, so it is fair game to remake.

However, there is one rule that I absolutely insist must be done with remakes. The remake better f**king be better than the original.

And this is where hollywood drops the ball over and over again. Usually because they just rely on special effects and say 'to hell' with the story telling, writing, and acting.

My rule of being better than the original goes double for music. THere is nothing worse than when the current teeny-bopper tries to remake a classic.

<reaches for icepick>

Like when Jessica Simpson remade the song Take My Breath Away. Egad

<sticks icepick in ear>

The original song with Berlin, had the INCREDIBLE musky melodious voice of a sultry sensuous woman pouring her heart out and dear god that song did certain things to a man.

And then you have a teeny-bopper singy the same song in a little girl voice and it was all i could do not to slit my wrists.

hhmmmm.... wow, that rant came out of nowhere, sorry.

<clears throat>

back to movies, yeah, the remake better be better than the original or at least do it justice

Mel...

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is a perfect example of this. Probably 90% of today's generation have not (nor would have) seen the original, so it is fair game to remake.

But I just can't stand that remake. I'll add some of my head shakers:

Journey to the Center of the Earth
Charlie and the Choc Factory
Logan's Run (will be coming out--why mess with this?)
War of the Worlds (okay, it slips by, maybe)
The Out of Towners

Some remakes surpass, even enhance. I did like The Thing remake. Totally.

Tri

triceretops said:

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is a perfect example of this. Probably 90% of today's generation have not (nor would have) seen the original, so it is fair game to remake.

But I just can't stand that remake. I'll add some of my head shakers:

Journey to the Center of the Earth
Charlie and the Choc Factory
Logan's Run (will be coming out--why mess with this?)
War of the Worlds (okay, it slips by, maybe)
The Out of Towners

Some remakes surpass, even enhance. I did like The Thing remake. Totally.

Tri

Click to expand...

Perhaps Hollywood shoudl just try rereleasing the orginal.

Take Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. The old version is simply SUPERIOR to the new. Same with War of the Worlds (minus special fx of course)

Again, if they are going to do the remake, make sure it is better than the original or at the very least on par.

*Sigh*

Hollywood just relies on FX way too much with remakes, writing be damned.

Mel...

triceretops said:

Charlie and the Choc Factory

Click to expand...

I didn't think that one was needed either. The first one was more than enough.

I don't consider Charlie & The Chocolate Factory a remake. I consider it another adaptation of the book. I don't think it's based on Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

This never bothered me. Hollywood's been doing this for decades so it's not exactly new. The studios want to get current stars into familar (or vaguely familar) plots.

If a remake sucks -- I don't go see it. Problem solved.

As far as a remake being 'needed'? The original wasn't 'needed' -- no movie ever has been. If Hollywood thinks they'll make money, they'll do it. Some concept of the public need has nothing to do with it.

Dommo said:

Am I the only person who's tired of remakes of good movies? Seriously, why remake a movie that's already excellent, when there are so many shitty movies with cool ideas that exist. I almost want to make up a "save the children" type ad campaign to try to rescue shitty movies with cool ideas from a cruel and undeserving fate.

It just frustrates me, and annoys the piss out of me, when I see good movies dragged kicking and screaming through broken glass and human excrement simply to make a few bucks(I'm talking to you asshole who directed the new Day the Earth Stood Still). It's like spray painting the mono-fucking-lisa and trying to sell the desecrated copy as a new and improved version of the previous artwork. The people who do this should be strung up by the balls, and forced to look at pictures of Janet Reno naked.

Why can't movie makers take it upon themselves to try to rescue movies that were "almosts". They had great ideas and just weren't well executed, or simply lacked the means/budget to support the story. This would be like restoring a water damaged artwork, and trying to bring it to the position of respect that it deserves. I'd consider a movie maker who did this to be a saint of his craft worthy of a place next to my framed Bruce Campbell Evil Dead poster above my entertainment abode near my throne(my LaZboy).

Click to expand...

The 1931 Frankenstein was much better than the 1910 Frankenstein.
The 1999 Mummy was much better than the 1911, 1912, 1914, 1923, 1932, and 1959 Mummies.
The Peter Jackson version of the Lord of the Rings is a bajillion times better than the 70s version.

The Humphrey Bogart version of the Maltese Falcon is head and shoulders better than the original.

The 1948 version of the three musketeers is better than the three versions that came before it -- and some people think the 1973 version is better than it. Even more like the 1993 version even better.



The problem isn't remaking a popular title -- some stories are universal, and need to be retold.

The problem is when the remake doesn't live up to its reputation. But this is a problem all films have, not just remakes.

This reminds me of a discussion I had around Xmas and someone was bitching about all the remakes of A Christmas Carol and how they should just stick with the original with Alastair Sims.

The problem of course is that is a remake.

I have long considered Showboat with Howard Keel and Ava Gardner to be a classic. I didn't realize until a few years ago it was a remake.

Mudcat said:

This reminds me of a discussion I had around Xmas and someone was bitching about all the remakes of A Christmas Carol and how they should just stick with the original with Alastair Sims.

The problem of course is that is a remake.

I have long considered Showboat with Howard Keel and Ava Gardner to be a classic. I didn't realize until a few years ago it was a remake.

Click to expand...

You know, this reminded me of 'A Christmas Story'.

When something is so good and 'timeless' as that, there is no way it will be remade.

I would think this movie has another 10 yrs left in it before it becomes outdated enough to be 'remade'. Which is a testiment to how brilliant it is. Made in 1983 and it still airs every Christmas like clockwork.

dclary said:

The 1931 Frankenstein was much better than the 1910 Frankenstein.
The 1999 Mummy was much better than the 1911, 1912, 1914, 1923, 1932, and 1959 Mummies.
The Peter Jackson version of the Lord of the Rings is a bajillion times better than the 70s version.

The Humphrey Bogart version of the Maltese Falcon is head and shoulders better than the original.

The 1948 version of the three musketeers is better than the three versions that came before it -- and some people think the 1973 version is better than it. Even more like the 1993 version even better.

Click to expand...

Of course, all of the stuff you've mentioned above (save for The Mummy movies) aren't so much "remakes" as different interpretations on source material. I, personally, have never seen much issue with that sort of thing, especially given how the "originals" frequently didn't adhere all that well to the source material.

Personally, I'd love to see a remake of The Running Man that actually follows the darker, more serious vibe of King's work. Arnold's version is pretty good dumb fun, actually, but a story legitimately based on King's novel would be more like a "hard R" version of Enemy of the State. It would be great...

Jcomp said:

Of course, all of the stuff you've mentioned above (save for The Mummy movies) aren't so much "remakes" as different interpretations on source material.

Click to expand...

In most cases, that's all a remake is.

dclary said:

In most cases, that's all a remake is.

Click to expand...

Touché.

The Poseidon Adventure was another one that did NOT need to be remade.

I'm with dclary -- bad remakes are a problem, but remakes aren't. Take, for instance, "The Thomas Crown Affair": I like the Steve McQueen version, but for my money, the Pierce Brosnan version is superior in pretty much every way.

I would agree, however, that the better the original film is, the harder it is to make a remake that can live up to it.

dclary said:

In most cases, that's all a remake is.

Click to expand...

I don't really agree. I don't consider it a remake unless it is based on the original movie.

RickN said:

As far as a remake being 'needed'? The original wasn't 'needed' -- no movie ever has been.

Click to expand...

Dark Knight is needed. By me. I don't know what I would do without it!