PDA

View Full Version : Annoyance with remakes.



Dommo
06-14-2009, 10:08 AM
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).

Zoombie
06-14-2009, 11:30 AM
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.

aquacat
06-14-2009, 11:34 AM
Guillermo del Toro.

He's doing The Hobbit next.

Zoombie
06-14-2009, 11:36 AM
That guy!

That guy would tots do justice to Nightbreed!

eyeblink
06-14-2009, 04:03 PM
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.

Celia Cyanide
06-14-2009, 07:26 PM
Am I the only person who's tired of remakes of good movies?

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.

Mudcat
06-14-2009, 09:13 PM
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.

naimas
06-15-2009, 01:10 AM
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.

dgiharris
06-15-2009, 01:42 AM
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...

Dommo
06-15-2009, 01:56 AM
As I said it drives me nuts when they remake GOOD movies.

A good movie is effectively immortal, as the effects are of little consequence in most films. Sure seeing the original star wars(without the digital effects being added), definitely shows the films age, but it doesn't detract from the movies themselves.

A shitty movie will always be shitty. I've seen some very visually appealing pieces of shit movies that have come out in the past few years, but it didn't change the fact that they were steaming piles of dug turd. However a few of them did have some redeeming qualities, and those are the movies that deserve a mulligan.

triceretops
06-15-2009, 02:08 AM
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

dgiharris
06-15-2009, 03:32 AM
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

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...

alleycat
06-15-2009, 03:41 AM
Charlie and the Choc Factory
I didn't think that one was needed either. The first one was more than enough.

Celia Cyanide
06-15-2009, 04:58 AM
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.

RickN
06-15-2009, 06:17 AM
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.

dclary
06-15-2009, 10:29 AM
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).


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.

Mudcat
06-15-2009, 05:08 PM
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.

dgiharris
06-15-2009, 11:29 PM
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.

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.

Jcomp
06-15-2009, 11:52 PM
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.


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...

dclary
06-16-2009, 12:32 AM
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.

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

Jcomp
06-16-2009, 01:09 AM
In most cases, that's all a remake is.

Touché.

Cyia
06-16-2009, 01:31 AM
The Poseidon Adventure was another one that did NOT need to be remade.

Claudia Gray
06-16-2009, 01:37 AM
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.

Celia Cyanide
06-16-2009, 02:03 AM
In most cases, that's all a remake is.

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

Celia Cyanide
06-16-2009, 02:05 AM
As far as a remake being 'needed'? The original wasn't 'needed' -- no movie ever has been.

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

dclary
06-16-2009, 03:52 AM
I *needed* Star Wars. It took a wellspring of imagination and opened the spigot of the heavens, giving me a roaring flood of creativity that I've been grateful for.

Some movies are needed.

Many are not.

Just like everything else in life.

SirOtter
06-16-2009, 04:31 AM
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.

The '99 Mummy used a couple of names and themes from the '32 version, but otherwise had nothing in common with it. Karloff's classic was one of the best horror films of the 30s; the recent batch are adventure films more than horror films.

And I agree that a remake that does something with the source that previous versions did not is okay. Both versions of The Thing are classics for their own reasons, but the remake is a lot closer to the original story, Campbell's 'Who Goes There?'. Ergo, there was a legitimate reason for making it. The folks who made the new Day the Earth Stood Still had the opportunity to rectify the previous film's deviation form the story both were based on, 'Farewell to the Master', but apparently went for only making the same story but darker and more special effects laden. That was not a legitimate reason to remake a classic. Mere technological advancement never is; you need to bring something more to the theater than better toys for making movies with.

As for the Maltese Falcon, the original was a pretty good pre-code film, and has several points of interest that recommend it. The 1936 version, Satan Met a Lady, was regurgitated out because the original could not be re-released without being gutted due to the implementation of the code in '34. It was terrible, so the Bogart version became, if not necessary, then certainly legitimate. And thus was born a Classic with a capital C.

BigWords
06-16-2009, 05:08 AM
I've given up with the constant stream of remakes / sequels / reboots of Pirhanna. There's only so many crap DVDs I can have in my collection...
Having lain waste to one franchise, I must congratulate the genius who decided the world is in desperate need of a new Akira film. I've wanted the bikes since I saw the animated film.
There's a list here (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/15211/38_planned_movie_remakes_you_didnt_know_about.html ) of the current possibilities to end up on the big screen.

SirOtter
06-16-2009, 05:22 AM
There's a list here (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/15211/38_planned_movie_remakes_you_didnt_know_about.html ) of the current possibilities to end up on the big screen.

From the list:
"The Birds
How depressing. Hitchcock’s awesome thriller is getting the remake treatment, with Martin ‘Casino Royale’ Campbell rumoured to be directing, and Naomi Watts linked with the project too. It has a release date of July 2009."

Depressing, indeed. Anyone care to speculate on whether they simply redo Hitch's take, or go back to Daphne DuMaurier's original story? I ain't holding my breath for a true adaptation of the source material, which is much more intimate and claustrophobic than the first adaptation.

Claudia Gray
06-16-2009, 06:38 AM
From the list:
"The Birds
How depressing. Hitchcock’s awesome thriller is getting the remake treatment, with Martin ‘Casino Royale’ Campbell rumoured to be directing, and Naomi Watts linked with the project too. It has a release date of July 2009."

Depressing, indeed. Anyone care to speculate on whether they simply redo Hitch's take, or go back to Daphne DuMaurier's original story? I ain't holding my breath for a true adaptation of the source material, which is much more intimate and claustrophobic than the first adaptation.


IMHO, if they actually go back to the original story, they might be onto something. Attempting to remake Hitchcock -- particularly something as out-there as "The Birds" -- strikes me as risky stuff. I'll never say that NOBODY could do it, but Martin Campbell's work would be cut out for him.

(Something like "To Catch a Thief," maybe, could be redone by the right hands. But "The Birds" is so bizarre! Somebody as bizarre as Hitchcock needed to do it.)

Enzo
06-16-2009, 06:55 AM
Hitchcock movies are so great and such classic masterpieces that nobody should even be allowed near them.

OK, I can imagine George Clooney in a new 'To Catch a Thief,' but hey, there's no need. Just watch the originals.

BigWords
06-16-2009, 07:00 AM
It could have been a much more depressing list... Pitof's name was nowhere to be seen, and for that alone I'm thankful.

With news filtering through about Red Sonja (and the pics of Rose McGowan being distributed here and there) I can at least see the point of a remake, but when anyone tries to go back to a film everyone knows (Psycho) it usually ends up a mess.

A few years back there was gossip of a Gone With The Wind remake. Give the idiots in charge of development five or ten years and the film will be discussed again. It's always been the same way.

*dclary: Star Wars started out as a remake of an old property (Flash Gordon I think). Because Lucas couldn't get the rights, he simply created a brand new space opera to play with. Sometimes the failure to acquire old properties can spur a director on to greater things.

childeroland
06-16-2009, 07:02 AM
Platinum Dunes just canceled the Birds remake, though they may still be going through with Rosemary's Baby.

Wavy_Blue
06-16-2009, 08:23 AM
Dune, hm? I'll be interested in seeing that.

I remember there being rumors awhile back about a Ferris Bueller remake. If this comes true, I will gouge out my eyes before I see it.

There are some classics you just don't mess with.

mario_c
06-16-2009, 08:42 AM
From the list:
"The Birds

Well, it couldn't be worse than the direct to cable sequel. Anyone? Anyone? Dare I say...Beuller?
(No sequel there - Matt Broderick has said it will be a warm sunshiny day in hell before he plays or even discusses Ferris again. Or words to that effect.)

BigWords
06-16-2009, 09:44 PM
That would be the same Matthew Broderick who starred in Inspector Gadget?

*shudder* Some remakes are best forgotten.

naimas
06-17-2009, 04:09 AM
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS.



Watched Friday the 13th last night. The sets were good, the dialogue was terrible. I don't ever want to read a book or hear a script coach, guru, forum or critique circle condemn single characters talking to themselves for five minutes because I see it too many times and it KEPT FREAKING HAPPENING in Friday the 13th. Really, it seems that newbies get these really legalistic rules heaped on them that the people in the biz never apply to themselves. The Asian guy talking to himself alone in the shed was one of the most worthless displays of cinema I have ever seen. Michael Bay should have demanded that part be cut.

And the music was off. Almost like they were using canned music composed before the filming because time and time again when Jason appeared NOTHING happened in the music. He would appear behind a person and the music wouldn't change. It killed the tension and terror. He would attack and there would be no real musical strike.
Also, Jason's mask didn't look like it fit because nine out of ten times you were looking at his eyebrow bone area instead of an eye. It became distracting. I know one of his eyes was way lower but his good eye should have been seen. Really,a faceless, emotionless character can show emotion with his eyes or eye. This one didn't even do that.

I also didn't like the multiple starts. I get the original opening, but then they should have cut to the second set of campers going to the house, the first group wasn't necessary. It would have added mystery if we just saw the girls picture on the paper and then were forced to imagine what horrors might have befallen her and her friends.

I HATED the second group of campers. HATED them. The dialogue was terrible. Marcus Nispel didn't make this mistake with Texas Chainsaw Massacre, why did he allow it with Friday?

And the choppy, messy camera work? Reminds me of young, hacker musicians who think they can play guitar but really can't.

And the ending? Come on. Jason gets his head in a wood cutter (which we set up for two freaking minutes and slowly drag him in) only he doesn't get his head hurt in the wood cutter (because he needs to come back in the sequel) and the rushed end shows him without any real damage to his head and the stupid people push him into the water? WTF? So they let him free of the chain, pick him up, carry him across the camp to the pier, sit him down on the ground. Stand or sit by him, look out at the water, pause and then put him into the water, and kick or toss his mask, which lands somewhere else, and then like three seconds later Jason jumps out of the water, WEARING his mask.

I guess you can tell that I didn't like the movie. Eerie sets were cool though.

childeroland
06-17-2009, 04:47 AM
Akira's done also. Looks like Warners got spooked after Watchman and T4.

ChaosTitan
06-17-2009, 09:09 PM
There will be a Red Dawn remake starring Captain Kirk.

No, I'm not kidding (http://geektyrant.com/2009/06/8665/). :(

Diana Hignutt
06-17-2009, 09:22 PM
Platinum Dunes just canceled the Birds remake, though they may still be going through with Rosemary's Baby.

Ugh...Rosemary's Baby is perfect as is. Don't let them touch it!

Kris
06-17-2009, 09:36 PM
This is a total pet peeve of mine also. Movies that were close to perfection the first time around always get remade and end up worse. But maybe they make money or something.

But I agree with whoever said that the near-misses should get remade instead. I'd like to see someone remake "A Boy and his Dog" or "Buck Rogers."

As to Hitchcock remakes--it's a really different movie, but I thought "A Perfect Murder" (remake of Dial M for Murder) was pretty satisfying.

naimas
06-19-2009, 12:16 PM
watch the remake of Friday the 13th. They pasted a wrong ending on it. That is why the end of the movie doesn't fit. In the deleted ended Jason doesn't get his head hurt by the shredder, it snaps his neck (which is why he is seen later with no head wound)

On the ending on the dvd it shows him getting the top of his head shredded, then stops. When he is seen later he has no head wounds.

Still a messed up ending though because he is thrown into the lake sans mask and then seconds later appears wearing the mask.

I watched the original Friday last night. MUCH BETTER.

jodiodi
06-19-2009, 08:45 PM
I'm tired of remakes period. Why are there no original stories being made into movies? If the originals were great, why rape them? If the originals sucked, why drag them out again?

childeroland
06-20-2009, 01:21 AM
At least the Oldboy remake is held up for the time being -- apparently Park Chan-wook (or Chan-wook Park?) may not have had the right to give Spielberg permission to make it. Though to be fair, I probably would see this out of curiosity.

Wavy_Blue
06-20-2009, 10:44 PM
There will be a Red Dawn remake starring Captain Kirk.

No, I'm not kidding (http://geektyrant.com/2009/06/8665/). :(

I didn't see Chris Pine or William Shatner in there...

CheshireCat
06-21-2009, 01:04 AM
Can anybody tell me why the recent Prom Night was almost totally bloodless?

I mean, seriously, with a body count that high, you'd expect plenty of blood and gore, but ...

It's like they didn't have a cleaning budget for the rugs.

BigWords
06-21-2009, 02:55 AM
Predator is rumoured to be getting a sequel which sounds like a reboot / reimagining. I can't say I'm surprised, but with AVP being so soul-destroying it'll have to be one hell of a film.

katiemac
06-21-2009, 03:00 AM
Predator is rumoured to be getting a sequel which sounds like a reboot / reimagining. I can't say I'm surprised, but with AVP being so soul-destroying it'll have to be one hell of a film.

I know Alien is getting one. I hadn't heard about Predator.

BigWords
06-21-2009, 03:11 AM
From the article in SciFiNow, Robert Rodriguez is directing. Ain't It Cool (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40865) has the story from a Twitter! Not sure how accurate the site is (they've claimed a lot of movies were going into pre-production which later died on their feet), but the news made it into print so somebody believes it.

Travis J. Smith
06-21-2009, 04:32 AM
There's a list here (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/15211/38_planned_movie_remakes_you_didnt_know_about.html ) of the current possibilities to end up on the big screen.
I am as disillusioned by all the crappy remakes that come out nowadays as anyone else, but I must say, Fahrenheit 451 and Frank Darabont (and Tom Hanks) sounds like a great pairing to me.

And, though it sounds as if the chances are slim, 1984 has potential.

These are the sort of remakes I want to see. Neither one of the original films was spectacular, but the source material is. I am basing this only on the consensus of reviewers, so go easy on me if you disagree. At one point I came near watching Fahrenheit 451, but a combination of a sub-par reception and its age, I backed off.

BigWords
06-21-2009, 04:55 AM
Fahrenheit 451 didn't have the best costumes or cinematography, and the book is a classic of its' type, so I have no problems with an adaptation of the source.

Truffaut was not the best choice for director in that instance, but the film (for me) has the same kitschy appeal as Danger: Diabolik and Godzilla. Its' not for everyone, but it is still watchable (unlike Barbarella or early Bond films) and deserves at least one viewing.

sunday morning
06-21-2009, 05:39 AM
I agree, they overdo the remakes. I'm tired of them, too.

That said, (and onto the Hitchcock discussion) I like the Psycho remake a lot more than the original. It's not that there's anything wrong with the original...I like it fine, but the remake is a lot scarier to me. Probably because of it being in color, I guess, where the movie blood looks real and isn't chocolate syrup as in the original (that's what I heard, anyway.) And acting-wise, I find it better, too.

SirOtter
06-21-2009, 11:52 AM
At one point I came near watching Fahrenheit 451, but a combination of a sub-par reception and its age, I backed off.

Not to defend the seriously flawed Truffaut 451, but what has age got to do with anything? Is that plagiarist Roy Leichtenstein a better artist than Michaelangelo, merely by virtue of being more recent? Is Cobain a better musician than Mozart? Uh, that would be a no and a no, by any intelligent, objective set of standards. A good film is a good film regardless of whether its creators had access to all the bells and whistles neophyte movie fans are currently used to. I fear you're confusing technological proficiency with art. A good silent film is better than a bad talkie. A good black-&-white film is better than a bad color film. A good film is better than a bad film, regardless of the relative ages of the works. To reject that which is old merely because it is old is the hallmark of folly.

SirOtter
06-21-2009, 11:54 AM
I like the Psycho remake a lot more than the original. It's not that there's anything wrong with the original...I like it fine, but the remake is a lot scarier to me. Probably because of it being in color, I guess, where the movie blood looks real and isn't chocolate syrup as in the original (that's what I heard, anyway.) And acting-wise, I find it better, too.

There is no hope. Civilization is doomed. Hurry the apocalypse.

BigWords
06-21-2009, 02:21 PM
I have to pip in with reccommended viewing here (talk of b&w films gets the blood flowing):

If you haven't seen Carol Reed's The Third Man, then go get a copy NOW.

Ditto for The Stranger (Nazi war criminal on the loose), The Universal monster flicks. Also check out Nosferatu and Metropolis (silent films are good).

Travis J. Smith
06-21-2009, 05:27 PM
Not to defend the seriously flawed Truffaut 451, but what has age got to do with anything? Is that plagiarist Roy Leichtenstein a better artist than Michaelangelo, merely by virtue of being more recent? Is Cobain a better musician than Mozart? Uh, that would be a no and a no, by any intelligent, objective set of standards. A good film is a good film regardless of whether its creators had access to all the bells and whistles neophyte movie fans are currently used to. I fear you're confusing technological proficiency with art. A good silent film is better than a bad talkie. A good black-&-white film is better than a bad color film. A good film is better than a bad film, regardless of the relative ages of the works. To reject that which is old merely because it is old is the hallmark of folly.That came off as a bit ignorant, I must admit, on my part. For all it means, Citizen Kane is one of my favorite films.

The reason age came into play was because all I read was how kitzschy it is, among other things, and I felt its age only exacerbated that. It was more me looking for a reason to dismiss it, any one would do, than anything else. Reviews got me close to watching it, but I still had that nagging thought in the back of my head that it wasn't for me, even based on the reviews, and the age ended up being how I rationalized it to myself.

Though in some cases, such as with sci-fi, but likely not so much with films like Fahrenheit 451, films do show their age more than others and it becomes more of a drawback. I am no Star Wars fan, for example, but I watched the first film in the prequel series and enjoyed it well enough. Recently I caught bits of the original films on TV and the special effects had me rolling to the point where it distracted me from the film itself, although I can safely say that what I watched and was not distracted from did not tickle my fancy in the least in the way of acting or anything else. Those films just don't seem to have anything going for them, as far as I'm concerned.

BigWords
06-21-2009, 06:07 PM
I may be opening myself up to torrents of abuse, but I didn't think much of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not because of the age, but just 'cause it didn't push my buttons. I would much rather watch the Flash Gordon serials, even though they are 'bad' SF.

Alcohol helps with the Star Trek viewing experience. :)

SirOtter
06-22-2009, 06:21 AM
Sorry if my diatribe came off as a bit strident, Travis. I'd spent several hours on multiple forums defending the concept of watching anything older than last week. I'm delighted, albeit sorry as well, to have misread your intent there. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I think my problem with 451 is that I just don't care much for French new wave films. I find the style alienating, which is part of the idea, but still. I prefer pre-war French films, the proto-noirs Jean Gabin did in the 30s. Or Cocteau's La Belle et La Bete, which is an absolutely gorgeous film. The period isn't the problem, just one of the directorial styles of that period.

BigWords, I saw 2001 in one of those old-fashioned 2000 seat theaters with a screen the size of a football field, maybe a week after it came out. I had no clue what it meant at the age of nine, but was bowled over by the sensory overload. I'm almost 51 now, and still have no idea what went on, and find it very hard to watch on a small screen.

Oh, and the Flash Gordon serials, while bad science fiction, were very good space opera. As were many serials. I've seen better than 100 of them, and never tire of them. Better than half of my Netflix queue is composed of serials.

Travis J. Smith
06-22-2009, 07:09 AM
2001: A Space Odyssey is, in my opinion, one of the benchmarks of great sci-fi cinema. :Shrug: When I first read about Sam Rockwell's new film Moon and saw the previews I immediately began to draw comparisons to 2001 because of the subject matter and because, like 2001, Moon looks to be a sort of film that doesn't come by very often anymore in sci-fi.

But I will not personally unleash torrents of abuse on you, BigWords. Looking at the film from as unbiased a point of view as I can manage, given my opinion of the film, it is very hit or miss. I mean, look no further than the beginning of the film. And then there's the whole 'Star-Child' bit (my initial reaction: :ROFL:) at the end, and the (lengthy) surreal bit before it. You either hate it or love it.

Dommo
06-22-2009, 07:22 AM
It's because "hard" sci fi is rare. Hollywood dislikes intensely cerebral movies, and most hard science fiction falls in that category. That's why you only see truly great hard science fiction about once every decade or so(blade runner, 2001, etc.).

BigWords
06-22-2009, 07:34 PM
But I will not personally unleash torrents of abuse on you, BigWords. Looking at the film from as unbiased a point of view as I can manage, given my opinion of the film, it is very hit or miss.

I was covering my ass in case any ardent Kubrick fans were around. Back when Eyes Wide Shut was released I said it wasn't a 'great' film and nearly got into a fistfight outside the cinema.


It's because "hard" sci fi is rare. Hollywood dislikes intensely cerebral movies, and most hard science fiction falls in that category. That's why you only see truly great hard science fiction about once every decade or so(blade runner, 2001, etc.).

If I start thinking about what Hollywood did to Solaris I'm gonna cry.

mario_c
06-29-2009, 08:30 AM
And in fact, none of it is new. None of it. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jun/19/paul-schrader-reality-tv-big-brother)

VinsenMDV
07-05-2009, 10:12 AM
Remakes are quickly becoming annoying. It's like Hollywood is either too cheap or too lazy to come up with original material.

blacbird
07-05-2009, 10:26 AM
Back when Eyes Wide Shut was released I said it wasn't a 'great' film and nearly got into a fistfight outside the cinema.

Why? It completely sucks.

As an aside, my nominee for worst movie remake ever would be the profoundly unfunny Albert Brooks version of The In-laws, the original and untouchably hilarious version being the one with Alan Arkin and Peter Falk.

caw

eyeblink
07-05-2009, 10:57 AM
I think my problem with 451 is that I just don't care much for French new wave films. I find the style alienating, which is part of the idea, but still. I prefer pre-war French films, the proto-noirs Jean Gabin did in the 30s. Or Cocteau's La Belle et La Bete, which is an absolutely gorgeous film. The period isn't the problem, just one of the directorial styles of that period.



I would defend Fahrenheit 451 as certainly interesting enough for a viewing, and I own it on DVD. In response to someone above, Nicolas Roeg's camerawork (it was Truffaut's first film in colour) is one of the best things about it. I'd also suggest that by then, Truffaut had got most of the New-Waveisms out of his style (which probably happened between Jules et Jim and La peau douce), and was well on the way to becoming the more classical-style filmmaker that he was for the remaining decade and a half of his life.

I do happen to like the New Wave, but in retrospect it looks like several very different directors who were working and collaborating with each other at the same time, but soon diverged in their styles and concerns. I also like the older French films SirOtter cites, and also the work of younger directors who weren't really part of the New Wave, such as Bertrand Tavernier.

triceretops
07-05-2009, 11:57 AM
The Out of Towners was a remake that should have never happened. Jack Lemon and Sandy D had it down to perfection. You couldn't improve on it no matter who directed or produced it.

Tri

DavidZahir
07-05-2009, 08:20 PM
I'll play Devil's Advocate and point out that many classic movies are in fact remakes: The Maltese Falcon and The Wizard of Oz to name just two as well as Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. How many versions of Dracula have there been? And wouldn't most agree that the first sound version was not the best? Me, I'm looking forward to another one -- just as I'd like to see another Hound of the Baskervilles and I hope the new film version of Carmilla is good. When Peter Ustinov starred in Death on the Nile I was bored but when David Suchet appeared in another version I was thrilled.

Bottom line -- what I want to see first and foremost is a good movie, and it is a remake I don't much care. It isn't as if all movies are ever going to remakes. Nor do I think one can honestly claim remakes are worse than the majority of movies out there. Every DVD store is lined with original junk (and contain original treasures of great price).

ChaosTitan
07-06-2009, 03:49 AM
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=56324


It was also reported (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=53283) earlier this year that Kennedy/Marshall was in negotiations to produce a remake of The NeverEnding Story, and Marshall explained his interest in the project. "We love the book and we've always thought there was an opportunity (because) there were a lot of elements in the book that weren't in the movie. It's another one where we're still working on the rights and it's a huge thing to get it. Once we get it, we'll bring on a writer, but that's kind of off in the distance. But it's a great story."

:cry::flag::cry:

Claudia Gray
07-06-2009, 04:12 AM
I had tried to watch "2001: A Space Odyssey" several times and always found it incomprehensible. Then, while I was recovering from surgery and very doped on pain medication, I found it on cable -- and that time, I really, really got it.

Afterward, I realized: That movie was not meant to be seen by the undrugged mind. I mean this as a compliment, honestly. It's calibrated to work with people's brains in a different way than most media, and you have to be very open to it (drugged, a kid or just ready for some craziness) and literally sort of let your mind go.

What I wish we'd see more remakes of aren't brilliant, all-time classics, but "pretty good" films of their day that have a solid concept and roles but have become dated or didn't fully fly the first time. I'd love to see a modern "The Barretts of Wimpole Street," or "Indiscreet." Most of the time, when a remake works for me, it falls into that category. For instance, although I still prefer the Spencer Tracy-Elizabeth Taylor version of "Father of the Bride," the Steve Martin version is perfectly warm, funny and charming.

blacbird
07-06-2009, 07:33 AM
Then there's the issue of the "Please, Jesus" Club, those movies for which you pray, "Please, Jesus, prevent anyone from ever doing a remake." These would include, but are by no means limited to:

High Noon
To Kill a Mockingbird
Casablanca
The African Queen
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
A Clockwork Orange
Little Big Man
The Man Who Would Be King
Hombre
The Bridge on the River Kwai


caw

ChaosTitan
07-07-2009, 02:21 AM
Seriously. Is there ANYONE on the planet who thinks we need a TJ Hooker movie?????

http://geektyrant.com/2009/07/tj-hooker-is-coming-to-the-big-screen/

eyeblink
07-07-2009, 03:05 AM
I had tried to watch "2001: A Space Odyssey" several times and always found it incomprehensible. Then, while I was recovering from surgery and very doped on pain medication, I found it on cable -- and that time, I really, really got it.

Afterward, I realized: That movie was not meant to be seen by the undrugged mind. I mean this as a compliment, honestly. It's calibrated to work with people's brains in a different way than most media, and you have to be very open to it (drugged, a kid or just ready for some craziness) and literally sort of let your mind go.



It does help to watch in widescreen, but 2001 is a film that benefits hugely from a big screen. I've been lucky enough to see it in 70mm twice.

I can't see a film that narratively unconventional, and that expensive ($10.5 million dollars in 1968) ever having a chance of being made nowadays, especially as few directors have the sort of clout that Kubrick had.

Serenity
07-08-2009, 09:10 PM
Seriously. Is there ANYONE on the planet who thinks we need a TJ Hooker movie?????

http://geektyrant.com/2009/07/tj-hooker-is-coming-to-the-big-screen/


WHAT.

THE.

F&*(????????????????????????????

:Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha: :Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha::Wha:

BenPanced
07-08-2009, 09:35 PM
Seriously. Is there ANYONE on the planet who thinks we need a TJ Hooker movie?????

http://geektyrant.com/2009/07/tj-hooker-is-coming-to-the-big-screen/
Great. Now we get to listen to Shatner b!tch about not being invited for a cameo in that one, as well...

BenPanced
07-08-2009, 09:39 PM
Then there's the issue of the "Please, Jesus" Club, those movies for which you pray, "Please, Jesus, prevent anyone from ever doing a remake." These would include, but are by no means limited to:

High Noon
To Kill a Mockingbird
Casablanca
The African Queen
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
A Clockwork Orange
Little Big Man
The Man Who Would Be King
Hombre
The Bridge on the River Kwai


caw
TV series from 1955. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047719/)
TV series from 1983 starring David Soul as Rick. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084994/)

BigWords
07-08-2009, 10:18 PM
There was a sequel planned for Casablanca as early as a couple of months after the film had been released, but the screenwriters couldn't think of a plot or the film. One of the few times in history when writer's block has been thanked...

ChunkyC
07-08-2009, 10:56 PM
I saw 2001 in one of those old-fashioned 2000 seat theaters with a screen the size of a football field, maybe a week after it came out. I had no clue what it meant at the age of nine, but was bowled over by the sensory overload. I'm almost 51 now, and still have no idea what went on, and find it very hard to watch on a small screen.
Pretty much my experience too. I love that movie. :)


Seriously. Is there ANYONE on the planet who thinks we need a TJ Hooker movie?????

http://geektyrant.com/2009/07/tj-hooker-is-coming-to-the-big-screen/
<insert deity of choice here> save us.

childeroland
07-08-2009, 11:25 PM
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=56324



:cry::flag::cry:
[/color][/size][/font]

In Hollywood's defense on this one, the classic film only covers the first half of Michael Ende's masterpiece. If someone good came along to do the whole story, that might be worthwhile, though it's hard to see how the story line could fit into 90-120 minutes. Though I doubt very much this film will happen.

ChaosTitan
07-09-2009, 04:26 AM
In Hollywood's defense on this one, the classic film only covers the first half of Michael Ende's masterpiece. If someone good came along to do the whole story, that might be worthwhile, though it's hard to see how the story line could fit into 90-120 minutes. Though I doubt very much this film will happen.

Yeah, I love the novel. There is so much in it that wasn't in the first movie (although they *ahem* tried to use some of it in the sequel) that they could use, but I dunno. I just love the first one so much. :)

childeroland
07-10-2009, 04:40 AM
From AV Club:

by Nathan Rabin July 9, 2009

According to the Hollywood Reporter (http://www.riskybusinessblog.com/2009/07/remo-williams-remake.html) Remo Williams, the pulp action hero created by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir, will be roaring back to life in a new adaptation of the popular adventure series. The character attained cult notoriety when it was adapted for the big screen in 1984 under the hilariously hopeful/delusional title Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins.

http://www.avclub.com/articles/today-in-bizarre-remake-news-remo-williams-the-adv,30187/?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=feeds&utm_source=avclub_rss_daily

I quite liked the original.